FCC Forum Divided on Future VoIP Regulation

ElCheapo writes "As the great philosopher Eminem once said, 'The FCC won't let [VoIP] be, or let [VoIP] be free.' In Washington today, the FCC held a public forum 'to gather information concerning advancements, innovations, and regulatory issues related to VoIP services.' Slashdot has seen numerous stories on VoIP regulation recently, but Tom Evslin, CEO of ITXC, brought up another point: If VoIP is over-regulated, it will not go away, it will just move to other countries and reach the point where regulation can no longer be enforced. With or without VoIP regulation, will a global P2P (PSTN-connected) voice network emerge? Will it start out as hobbyists setting up Asterisk Open Source PBX boxes connected to their home POTS line? Will some form of ENUM allow least cost routing to boxes sitting in basements and garages around the world? If an ITSP in Europe can setup an Asterisk box with PSTN access and start offering US phone numbers and vice-versa, will global number plans become obsolete? What effect will the ridiculously low barrier to entry for VoIP have on telecommunications?"

Comments

How quaint.

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has already made up it's mind: it will hand over the business to the telco conglomerates. The little man has no say in this, these "public meetings" are all a charade.

Re:How quaint.

[Anonymous Coward]

A nice jacket with long arms. I have to type with my nose.

Damn, it smells like they burnt my toast again...

Re:How quaint.

[iamplupp]

cited from opening remarks by FCC chairman M K Powell: "no regulator, either federal or state, should thread into this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so"

Re:How quaint.

[NewWaveNet]

The FCC has already made up it's mind: it will hand over the business to the telco conglomerates.

I think you're missing the point. Who cares if the FCC decides to regulate things when the companies offering these services are beyond their jurisdiction.

Re:How quaint.

[swordboy]

The little man has no say in this, these "public meetings" are all a charade.

In this case, I would have to disagree.

Any Joe Schmoe with the proper resources (either intellectual or financial) can whip up a VoIP application and communicate over the internet merely free of regulators. This won't change.

Now, all these telecom taxes exist because the PSTN (public switched telephone network) is a monopoly - you can't have multiple PSTN networks. It would become too bulky and there would be no economy of scale. The taxes exist so that this monopoly can be regulated.

Now, I can see a tax when a VoIP device interfaces with the PSTN. But this should only pressure the VoIP industry to move away from the PSTN. PSTN, as stated above, is bulky and not practical when we have efficient packet-switching networks that can easily replace it at 60 percent of the cost.

I vote for taxes on a per-PSTN call basis. This would be a good compromise - those that use packet-switching would not have to support the junk that is PSTN.

I would also like a module to interface with my home phone system. If I dial a "normal" PSTN phone number, it simply routes my call over my POTS phone line. If I dial a # or * prior to an IP address or URL, then it should route my call over my internet connection.

After a while, I wouldn't see the need for a PSTN, anymore.

Re:How quaint.

[walt-sjc]

Maybe the regulatory fees and taxes are obsolete at this point? Something to think about... I have also seen new flat-rate plans that various telcos are offering. These seem to be good savings over past rates. Maybe this is a case of technology and business evolving beyond the technology of 100 years ago. Things to think about anyway...

Re:How quaint.

[MindStalker]

Long Distance calls, not local. And honestly as there is constant compitition for long distance I'd imagine the savings would be passed on to the customer. Heck discount long distance carriers have been doing this for a long time, my parents once switched to a carrier that obvisouly were being relayed over a HAM radio or something of that type.

Re:How quaint.

[donutello]

The problem is that telecom taxes are a revenue source. This problem will persist while we have a tax structure that imposes taxes at multiple points: sales tax, income tax, property tax in addition to overhead taxes like universal access tax, gas tax, etc. Politicians like to hide the amount of money they are taxing you by sliding taxes onto as many activities as possible.

Your phone bill includes, among other taxes and fees, a universal access change. This money goes towards funding internet access for schools and public libraries, among other things. This stuff should have been funded by the property taxes that the city and county collect anyway but a property tax increase is never popular. Instead we have a scheme where the government is depressing economic activity by taxing it.

An unregulated VoIP network would mean taking money away from these things and here is where the hair-brained taxation scheme comes back to bite us. Something that would provide a better service to the citizens and make better use of available infrastructure is being hindered because the government hasn't figured out a way to make money off of it yet.

Re:How quaint.

[Greger47]

> After a while, I wouldn't see the need for a PSTN, anymore.

Yes, but you still need cables to each home transporting that internet traffic.

And it's the cables that are the natural monopoly, not the fact that they used to be used for phonecalls.

So while PSTN might be dying, sooner or later broadband internet connections will end up regulated for the same reasons as PSTN was.

/greger

Re:How quaint.

[cyril3]

that's what his dad said about iraq and look at the fine mess he got us into.

Re:How quaint.

[falconfighter]

Exactly. Why does it matter to them what I'm doing with the broadband connection I rent? It's like the government deciding what roads you can drive a car on, they just shouldn't regulate that. It may implicate a shift of power from the big phone companies (Sprint, AT&T, MCI, Verizon) to the smaller ISPs'.

Re:How quaint.

[Amadodd]

The problem with jurisdiction is that it can change.

1. Generate taxes using jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction circumvented by people with little or no lobbying power in government.

3. Tax revenue declines.

4. Change jurisdiction.

5. Generate taxes and Profit!!

Hope I am not being too cynical

Re:How quaint.

[anthony_dipierro]

Now, all these telecom taxes exist because the PSTN (public switched telephone network) is a monopoly - you can't have multiple PSTN networks.

How so? We do have multiple PSTN networks. Both for long distance, and for local (only one land-line based local, usually, but many mobile based lines). Are you saying that it's all part of one system? Isn't the internet the same?

PSTN, as stated above, is bulky and not practical when we have efficient packet-switching networks that can easily replace it at 60 percent of the cost.

Packet switching doesn't really solve any problems. Most of the time that you're on the phone with someone someone is talking. And packet-switching requires aggregation, which is only reasonable for long distance. And we already have packet-switched networks carrying PSTN data across long distances.

I would also like a module to interface with my home phone system.

Asterisk, as mentioned in the article, is this interface.

Curious

[ActionPlant]

No idea, really...stating that if the US over-regulates the tech will move overseas is obvious.

What I'm wondering is how far overseas they'll have to move. What are our Canadian neighbors doing?

Damon,

Re:Curious

[IamGarageGuy 2]

As a Canadian, I am fully willing to set up a VOIP box in my basement at a very minimal cost to the overtaxed Americans. I am sure that it will run for at least a month before our overbearing and tax hungry government will start to tax the hell out of me too.

Re:Curious

[ActionPlant]

I'm two hours from the border myself, which is why I was curious.

Perhaps if you were to disguise what you do as...um...non-profit?

Which brings up an interesting question. What if a non-profit organization were to provide services like this to "members", perhaps like a co-op?

Damon,

Re:Curious

[doconnor]

The Canadian equivalent of the FCC, the CRTC, decided years ago not to regulate the Internet.

Re:Curious

[ActionPlant]

I would consider this a grey area, but as long as they don't, then I'm all for getting Canadian VoIP phone services.

Re:Curious

[fastidious edward]

Overseas doesn't even have to be a country... a second hand oil rig with a satellite connection is all it takes, as long as it's in international waters it isn't bound to any nation's regulation. IIRC several web hosts are set up like this.

Of course they could have special import/export duties on VoIP services... anti free trade taxes seem to be the government's favorite at the moment (at least the steel tarriff is on the way out... cheaper machines for all!).

Re:Curious

[IamGarageGuy 2]

I guess if you had a specific set of people that called each other - Uncle Bob in Texas calls Aunt Jane in Istanbul everyday. The problem I see is that you can't usually predict who you will call at any specific time. In business you do not want to set up a whole system to call a customer - you just want to pick up the phone and call him, figure out the cost after the fact. The underlying problem I see is that you have to get everyone to move to VOIP at the same time. Not impossible, but certainly out of my ability.

Re:Curious

[Dr Caleb]

The second largest phone company Telus is switching most of it's existing POTS network to VoIP.

Re:Curious

[RetroGeek]

He must be in Hawaii.....

Re:Curious

[ActionPlant]

Okay, so maybe overseas was the wrong term. I'm two hours from the Canadian-American border. I wouldn't mind being in Hawaii, though.

Re:Curious

[silicon not in the v]

Yeah, so did congress, but they seem to have forgotten.

Asterix - VoIP for me?

[sirReal.83.]

So given Debian, Asterix and a modem it's possible for me to set up my own (personal) VoIP line? er... I'm sure I'm missing something. Someone boil all this telco talk down for me ;)

Re:Asterix - VoIP for me?

[jrmann1999]

It's not exactly that easy. You will also typically need a working(and supported) soundcard. The modem list with support is slim. Asterisk is really designed to do FXO/FXS integration for T1 circuits to carry voice signals across them. It can also do H.323 and SIP out of the box(so to speak).

Re:Asterix - VoIP for me?

[RustyTaco]

Debian, check, Asterisk, check, modem, no. Digum single line FXS card, yes. And if you throw a single line FXO card in too you can plug your phone into the FXS, PTSN line into the FXO, and configure asterisk to route what it can (friends, etc) over some sort of VoIP(H323, SIP, IAX, etc) and everything else out the PTSN line.

As an uber bonus you get voicemail and can then to spiffy menus and skrew with people just like call centers like to you, complete with MP3 hold music. "I value your call, please hold." "I'm not answering right now, press one to leave a message, press 2 to page my cell phone with your caller ID info..." etc. Hell, you can even use CallerID to decide how to answer calls. Work=>strait to voicemail, girlfriend (Hey! It could happen) => play a special message and ring the phone with a distinctive ring. Ex-girlfriend=>"This number has been disconnected, or is not in service".

It's almost enough to make me want a land line ;)

- RustyTaco

Is this an essay test?

[plexxer]

With or without VoIP regulation, will a global P2P (PSTN-connected) voice network emerge? Will it start out as hobbyists setting up Asterisk Open Source PBX boxes connected to their home POTS line? Will some form of ENUM allow least cost routing to boxes sitting in basements and garages around the world? If an ITSP in Europe can setup an Asterisk box with PSTN access and start offering US phone numbers and vice-versa, will global number plans become obsolete? What effect will the ridiculously low barrier to entry for VoIP have on telecommunications?

Answer each question completely, citing examples whenever possible. Use the back of Slashdot for scratchwork if necessary.

Re:Is this an essay test?

[cgenman]

1. With or without VoIP regulation, will a global P2P (PSTN-connected) voice network emerge?

C. Nothing can stop the network. Communications want to be free. Pirated voice communications will just go underground. They can't sue everybody. Besides, they deserve it, the convicted monopolists.

Will it start out as hobbyists setting up Asterisk Open Source PBX boxes connected to their home POTS line?

B. I already have an OS PBX box connected to my POTS line through a POS P2.

Will some form of ENUM allow least cost routing to boxes sitting in basements and garages around the world?

D. Why do we need the old phone number system? It is an antiquated relic of a bygone time. Just like IPv4 and Internet 1, nobody uses it anymore.

Here at the Medialab, our XML IM Toaster burns 100 messages per minute into White or Wheat bread using nothing more than predictive assumptions. It has achieved a 90% success rate by churning out ads for the next Lord of the Rings movie.

If an ITSP in Europe can setup an Asterisk box with PSTN access and start offering US phone numbers and vice-versa, will global number plans become obsolete?

A. Global number plans are obsolete. The phone number that used to reach my job now goes to India, you insensitive clod.

What effect will the ridiculously low barrier to entry for VoIP have on telecommunications?

B. It will allow US companies to squabble over file formats until VOIP has achieved irrelevancy, while Open Standards take over in the rest of the world ushering in a new era of freeflowing communications.

Actually, that last one wasn't a joke. Sorry. :(

Re:Is this an essay test?

[Moofie]

"B. I already have an OS PBX box connected to my POTS line through a POS P2."

Wow. And I thought the military liked acronyms. That's impressive!

Re:Is this an essay test?

[mitheral]

TelCos are the acronym gods. The need is the same as in computing but they've been at it twice as long.

What will emerge

[mindstrm]

is a global voip network, and pots will become largely irrelevant in connected areas.

The need for pots to internet gateways is what holds us up now.. think of how things owrk once most people are all using voip.. suddenly, it's all software.. adn hooking people together for voice stuff no longer needs ANY kind of centralizing....

it won't be regulated, as ultimately, it can't be.

Re:What will emerge

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I think you will find that any call that terminates in the USA is subject to the FCC's control. Therefore any of those global voip calls terminating in USA is likely to be of interest to them. Maybe before long answering an unlicensed (unauthorised) VoIP call could be a felony.

What you can guarantee is that given the money involved and the telcos' lobbying/bribery powers they won't just roll over and die.

Remember kids, be nice to AT&T, they invented Unix (then sold/gave) it to SCO.

Re:What will emerge

[soupart]

As much as I don't want VoIP to become regulated, I think in the end it will be. What happens when the revenue telcos get from their PSTN/POTS and exchange services with other telcos starts to dwindle? They will look for ways to get that revenue back. Want to route a call to a user on my network? Gonna have to pay. Afterall, bandwidth isn't free, right? That's when the FCC gets involved and revamps all the old rules to work with the new technology.

Will it happen soon? I don't think so. Until VoIP is more mainstream to the general public, the PSTN isn't gonna die.

Re:What will emerge

[iabervon]

Actually, what I expect to see emerge is a bi-directional streaming audio protocol. Whether it has anything to do with the telephone or not is a matter of whether there is too much regulation there. For that matter, it may well not be limited to a single audio channel, but have support for video (if you have enough bandwidth), general file transfer, shared drawing space, etc.

On the other hand, the same people may well still use traditional telephony to call traditional phone numbers, because it could be too much of a hassle to provide the gateways if regulators don't like the idea. (Sure, you can go to a country where the regulators like the idea, but your friends will get annoyed if it's an international call to reach you, probably).

Re:What will emerge

[mindstrm]

But that's the point. Your friends will eventually have VOIP as well... and the concept of an international call will simply vanish.

As soon as we hit the breaking point.... teh need for gateways will vanish.

Re:What will emerge

[anthony_dipierro]

suddenly, it's all software.. adn hooking people together for voice stuff no longer needs ANY kind of centralizing....

The centralizing is in the network itself. You're not going to run a phone line from your house to every single other house in the world. That would be silly. Instead you'll run a whole town full of houses to a CO, and then run a bunch of towns into a common area for a metropolitan area. For local calls perhaps you could use direct wireless connections, but this is the exception, not the rule.

it won't be regulated, as ultimately, it can't be.

However, the internet connections themselves will be regulated.

It has already started

[srboneidle]

I don't really understand how any regulation on VOIP would work. Living in England, I speak to my family in Spain on a daily basis using VOIP. At the moment I sit down if front of a computer and use microphone/speakers. How long will it be until someone comes up with a telephone type device which you plug into your DSL modem?

Re:It has already started

[musikit]

i believe Cisco already has a VoIP phone for businesses. one office i worked in we had something like one of these. your phone acted like a normal phone. VoIP for internal. and converted to normal tele when you dialed an outside #.

Re:It has already started

[AbbyNormal]

Kinda like this ?

I think the next "killer app" will be a linux box that does this AND has the ability to sync up your entire house's phone system. Right now, with Vonage, I do not believe there is a way to do it...you can only have the phone coming out of the router. It would be really nifty if someone could hook up a router box with a "Modem"-like card that just plugs into your box and a phone jack. That phone jack would then feed the rest of the house.

Re:It has already started

[oakbox]

There are devices like this now, Vonage http://www.vonage.com, comes to mind, though the early VOIP providers are going through a price war/shakeout so it's hard to see who will come out on top (or with the standard).
There is a basic assumption in the original post, local calls are not free here in the Netherlands. You pay for every minute on the phone, it's just a question of how much. And individual connection points doesn't scale well. VOIP and traditional telcos will merge only with the agreement and participation of the telcos.
The race right now is to see which road we go down, a complete one for one replacement of traditional phone connections or a merging of telcos into VOIP. Several telcos are starting to move their internal traffic over IP right now, so I think we'll see the second future.
Nothing is really free (as in beer), and if it is, it's only because someone hasn't figured out how to charge you for it.

Re:It has already started

[srboneidle]

What I really meant is why use the current telephone system at all? As flat rate high speed internet connections become more and more common it becomes that much easier to stick to pure VOIP. All you have to do is make it as easy as dialing a phone and people will use it. I haven't paid for a phone call to my family for a long time now.

PS: I highly recommend TeamSpeak (www.teamspeak.org) which is what I use at the moment.

Re:It has already started

[christooley]

You mean like:
SIP Phone
or snom
or Grandstream
or Pulver

and that's just naming a few.

Re:It has already started

[Pii]

Do ACs ever read their replies? Let's find out...

Do you mean to say that you're using Asterisk in lieu of Call Manager, or that Call Manager is using Asterisk as a POTS gateway?

I'm curious about your environment. Can you provide any additional details?

And to open the floor to any other interested parties: Are there any Open Source "Cisco Call Manager" replacements?

I'd love to be using 802.11 based VoIP handsets, like the Spectralink sets, or the new Cisco handset at home (In addition to Cisco's Wired IP Phones, which kick ass), but I can't exactly afford a Call Manager.

Re:It has already started

[tadheckaman]

On the cisco 7960/7940/etc phones they have SIP firmware images... works great with asterisk.

Re:It has already started

[Bangback]

While they warn you in big letters not to connect the Vonage POTS jack to your house, it works perfectly when you do it (in fact, the Cisco box is designed to support it) with just a normal phone cable. There are numerous people (including me) who've done it. My wife had no idea we'd switched other than she has to dial with 10 digits. The four existing phones are great, just clearer (and free caller id, etc.). The issue is if you unintentionally crossconnect the box with a live circuit from the phone/cable company you will burn out the box and make the phone company's equipment unhappy. Which could happen if they're at the wrong house, (or you're out of town, phone dies, and your wife asks the neighbor to help), they open the customer premises demarcation, see an unplugged jack, and do the logical thing. So to be safe you need to do something extreme like chop off the end/electrical tape/big signs.

Re:It has already started

[mianbao]

Actually, Yamaha has a Broadband Router (RT57i) that allows you to plug in your normal analog phone. You just need to configure the the router (Web-based UI) to connect to any SIP server (e.g. Asterisk, Vocal, or even FWD(Pulver)) and your set for VoIP.

Re:It has already started

[otmar]

SIP server do *not* route the actual voice traffic; they just do the signalling. Thus you don't need any signficant amount of bandwidth to run a SIP server for a large community.

The RTP stream containing the actual audio goes directly from phone to phone.

Re:It has already started

[chainsaw1]

IMHO, the key is to disconnect you local phone wiring from the phone company wiring. My house has a box outside with one half "Owner" and the other half "Verizon" (with a little lock on it). Inside there are 8 connectors, 2 for each wire.

I don't use phone service but I do want to use the phone wires for CAT 3 communication throughout the house. When I checked the lines, the wires which are supposed to be dead still carry voltage. I assume disconnecting them at the aforementioned box will eliminate the voltage.

This voltage/signal may be why Vonage says to not do it. the router will provide its own power and the stuff coming from the phone company may signifigantly affect the signal quality.

Once disconnected, I don't see any reasom why it shouldn't work. One questeion though; do you need a crossover for the RJ-11 on the router for it to work?

Re:It has already started

[Bangback]

Good point -- rereading my post I skipped mentioning unplugging at the interface. Essential to getting it to work. Apparently a few people didn't and Vonage was pretty unamused when they burnt up their routers. But you need to do more than unplug to prevent unintentional replug. Voltage on the line means its hooked up to the switch at the central office -- thus they could turn it on remotely. No crossover is needed. RJ-11 cables are always straight through since they're an analog signal (difference between two wires) rather than a digital signal (one direction on each wire).

The big question for me

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until we start seeing the P2P-based net phone networks able to connect to POTS?

All it would take is one 10-10-whatever-like pay service where you call a node on the P2P network, then enter a real-life phone number, which they connect you to..

Re:The big question for me

[MidnightBrewer]

As mentioned before, broadband providers in Japan have already made this a reality.

I have Yahoo! BB service, and their setup is really sweet. It automatically detects if I'm calling another Yahoo customer, and the call is free. Calls back to the states are only 2 cents a minute just by dialing a three-number prefix before I dial the normal country code and number.

Just The Facts

[Pave Low]

For those who want to know what the issue is about, instead of scanning the submitter's poor writeup filled with his slant and myriad questions, here's a better article on what's going on.

FCC Chairman Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation.

Re:Just The Facts

[Dhalka226]

Sigh. I'm so sick of this it's not even funny.

Why the hell is it that people continually feel the need to run down the submiters, the editors and everybody else here who is working for you to provide you a free service that, by your being here, I assume you find both enjoyable and informative?

Don't like their writing? Submit your own stories. Stop coming. Whatever. Just quit bitching already. It's not funny, it's not insightful, it's not on topic and it is of no value.

Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I've said this before... when phone moved from copper to fibre, the regulations didn't change so why expect them to change when the underlying medium is IP? I'm not saying the regulation is a GoodThing, but surely any arguments that say that a change to IP as a medium is just plain illogical.

Sure, this could drive some VoIp offshore, but what they're likely controlling is the call itself. If the call originates or terminates in the USofA, then the call falls under FCC control and they will want their slice.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[azpcox]

The real question you should ask is why are phone calls so expensive in the first place? Originally, the regulation was in place to make sure the rural areas had access to the telecommunications, so regulation still may make some sense in that regard.

But what makes a phone call different from an email, or from an instant message chat with someone around the world? The only difference is speed. So should the FCC put caps on speed to make sure VOIP is not allowed? Buy a cable modem and pay a monthly SPEED tax to use VOIP and other services? Sending pictures falls into the same category since it is just an information transfer, so iChat AV is really hosed (but really cool).

I agree with you that the FCC has no choice but to regulate it, but the only reason will be for money and not for any other technical reason. It's time to stop subsidizing bad business models and short sightedness in the form of the current RBOCs.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[interiot]

why expect them to change when the underlying medium is IP?

Okay, charge for the medium in general then (IP, cable, DSL, etc...), not particular applications running on top of it (irc, email, voip). Applications are far too fluid, innovative, and morphable/hidable (especialy for geeks like us) for the government to define exactly what should be charged for and what shouldn't. (though you could say that about radio waves too, *grumble*). I don't want an intrusive infrastructure hard-wired into my computer or on the ISP's side that analyzes every packet and charges differently for each one.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[ad0gg]

VOIP is that just that Voice over IP, be it Sip or H323 or any thing else. So now I should pay money because I play Counterstrike and use voice enabled feature to talk to my teammates? Or Xbox live users? Or using video conferencing over IM? Or any of the web conferencing products? Better yet, why should I be double taxed. I already pay taxes on my telephone line, now you want me to be double taxed because I'm using VOIP too? VOIP is only part of the future, SIP which can specify many different types of communication will be the future. People keep thinking our phones are going to be used for voice only, take a look at cell phones. Its going to be text messages(sms), video conferencing, picture messageing(mms) and much more. I guess we could kill it now by over regulating it since change is bad.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[alexborges]

when phone moved from copper to fibre, the regulations didn't change so why expect them to change when the underlying medium is IP?

because i can afford for 30 bucks a month an adsl line that gives me IP to do voice over it, but i didnt have the same chance with fiber.

Massification is a function of price. This has to change the regulations or you face a monopoly like i do in my country, one that will be made innefective because they wont be able to stop the voip revolution even if they want to. It will just take more time than if we didnt have a monopoly.

If you guys have the chance to do it right from the begining, do so.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[dacarr]

This shouldn't be regulated for the same reason that data connections (read: your 57.6 kbps modem) over POTS lines are not - because the line is already paid for. The transmission medium can be FO, Cu, or even PVC pipe (if you can get that to carry a signal), but one way or another, the plumbing as it were is covered. Just because you change the content of the signal doesn't mean that the pipes are radically altered. TCP/IP is just part of that hash of stuff that travels over the wire.

To charge just to send VoIP data over a TCP/IP line along with all the other crap that goes with a TCP/IP line is a hearkening back to the "modem tax" proposal from the 1980s.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[iabervon]

The telephony network gives you reliable, timely delivery. That is, you get a chunk of bandwidth on all of the segments between you and the other end, and this bandwidth carries your signal, whatever it is, as long as you're connected. This is why, if the system is overloaded, you may have a hard time getting a connection, but once you've got one, it's just like when the system isn't overloaded.

This is fundamentally different from an IP network, where routers along the path delay or drop packets as needed to be able to push data around, and the protocols are designed to manage the unreliability. Of course, they can only insure either that the stream never gets out of order or that the stream is never delayed too much, not the complete reliability of delivery that phone gives you.

So IP-to-telephone calls use both networks, and might get regulated that way. But pure VoIP calls aren't "telephone calls" at all; they're IP connections. It's no more "free telephone calls" than talking in person or talking by two-way radio. Of course, it's not free either; you'll have to pay somehow for your IP connection.

Incidentally, I suspect that traditional telephone may end up as a city service like water or sewer service. This is because it is in the government interest to provide 911 service, and to tax the public in the area accordingly, and IP, without dedicated bandwidth, may not be considered sufficient.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[donutello]

We didn't complain when the government tacked on a universal service fee to our phone bills because it was "for the poor".

We didn't complain when the government tacked on a public access fee to our phone bills to pay for internet access in schools and libraries because it was "for the children".

Now we are getting bit in the ass by those same taxes and the loss of revenue that would ensue from moving to an unregulated system.

The right solution would be to insist that the government stop taxing every economic activity and restrict taxes to sales, income and property taxes and use those revenues to pay for everything the government wants to fund.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[Cyno]

The way I like to see it happen is for techs to just take a step around the regulatory bodies, the industry, anyone who thinks they are in a position of authority and just implement the technology, create their own standard and make it work well, for free, using highly competitive technology.

The phone and the TV will both become software on the computer, just like the radio and stereo.

Sure we could keep it all separate and have a separate phone, cable and internet bill. But if you're going to buy a computer for something anyway why not just integrate everything into it and have one bill to deal with.

Who thinks its a good idea to give Comcast $50/mo for internet and basic cable service, and then turn around and pay SBC another $25/mo for phone service? And then be charged for hidden numbers, do-not-call lists, FCC and other regulatory taxes and fees, converter boxes, wasted time install/repairing failed service, etc.

These companies need to learn how to do it right. We've paid them billions, but they have no motivation, no competition. The internet and the computer change all of that. If we're smart enough to exploit their potential.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[mianbao]

Hmm.. It's just like water. You pay the utility company (phone company) to provide you with clean water (quality assured), and because it is a service, you pay some sort of tax for it. Alternatively, you can get collect rain water, and pass it through a filter yourself (quality not assured). You pay a property tax for being in that area (ISP/bandwidth charge and Govt tax), if the tax is too high you can always move elsewhere (change provider).

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[mitheral]

How reliable is your phone service? Cable? In most cases you'll find phone service is at least twice as reliable as dsl/cable service. Not too important until you have to dial 911 in a black out.

Re:Why should IP make telephone calls free?

[Cyno]

Okay, whatever you say. I don't have either a phone or cable service any longer. Besides, I can take care of myself. I know exactly what to do in case of an emergency.

Interesting

[turtlexit]

I'll be interested to see what comes of this. If the FCC does successfully implement regulation (read: taxation) on VoIP services, it seems like this could be the first step of further future regulation of Internet services.

With global networking technology, I think we'll be seeing a big change in telecommunication service in the coming years.

Already paid for

[BWJones]

What this comes down to is companies suddenly realizing they are set to lose market share. We are rather successfully using iChat AV to remotely collaborate from N. America to New Zealand, but here is the deal. We are already paying for access to the Internet out of our grant indirect costs to the university. So are others that are paying to have access to the Internet from their homes and businesses. If the major phone companies have not been on the ball enough to see this one coming, perhaps they need new boards of directors or CEO's as voice over IP has not been an overnight phenomenon. Furthermore, the government should not be stepping in to attempt to rescue companies that have not been smart enough to adequately compete. Right? Is this what market consolidation and deregulation done for us?

Re:Already paid for

[rcastro0]

Furthermore, the government should not be stepping in to attempt to rescue companies that have not been smart enough to adequately compete.

Unless it compromises national infrastructure, things such as railroads, highways, energy generation... and telecom.

Re:Already paid for

[silentbozo]

Well, if you really want to deter this kind of behavior, you should't be offering them a bailout (which is nothing more than a reward for screwing everybody over.) You should, instead, threaten them with nationalization - that will really light a fire under their asses. Otherwise, there's every incentive to cut muscle along with fat, in the name of profits during lean times, because you know that the government will step in with cheap loans, debt forgiveness, tax incentives, etc. if you run into trouble.

Re:Already paid for

[Yazheirx]

Would VOIP not simply combind telecom and the internet? And as the internet was created by the DOD to work reliably; wouldn't this increas our overall infrastrucure reliability?

Moeny money money

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing holding VOIP back is the FCC deciding who gets money from it. I mean, the only reason the US isn't using solar power exclusively is because nobody's found out how to run a sunbeam through a meter, right?

The telcos are scared that this will make them obsolete, so they HAVE to find a way to make a buck off this.

Re:Moeny money money

[silentbozo]

Solar power is completely unreliable and cost ineffective... it just isn't advanced enough.

Funny, they do meter sunbeams - it's called selling power back to the utility. This same system (grid-tie solar) also removes the need for battery banks for cloudy days and for when the sun isn't out in force (ie, after sundown.)

Solar power used in a distributed fashion is quite effective, and can be cost effective over the long run (around $3 per watt initial investment) depending on how expensive local power is.

Of course, it's much cheaper on a dollar for watt basis just to reduce consumption - convert incandescent lights to fluorescent, use a power strip to shut down stereo/tv equipment that draws power on standby, design buildings to use more natural light, with more effective passive cooling/heating to cut down on excessive HVAC plants.

Let the market rule

[mikeymckay]

Allow VOIP to be unregulated (you can't really stop this anyway). If it causes the phone companies to start losing money then they raise prices to compensate, and our home phone lines cost more.

I don't know where most of the revenue stream for telcos comes from, but if it is from long distance phone calls - then they need a new business plan. Those days are over. If they are spending too much money to keep the internet working then they need to raise prices on access to the internet lines and the price will rise at our ISPs.

I think the real problem is the stupid white men are seeing their business replaced by better technology and they are crying to Sugar Daddy Bush to help them out. New technology almost always means business die.

RIP phone companies.

Re:Great Philosopher Eminem.

[kmankmankman2001]

"Rapito ergo sum" Hey, why not toss that in to further confuse the kid and his teacher? Yes, apparently this philosopher Eminem gave birth to that essential truth "I rap, therefore I am"

Re:Great?

[Von Helmet]

Well, the fact of the matter is that he actually sang "The FCC won't let me be, or let me be me" so the quote should be "The FCC won't let [VoIP] be, or let [VoIP] be [VoIP]". Is this the part where I get downvoted for quoting song lyrics, even though they were quoted (wrongly) in the title?

Our gov should not be taxing free speech.

[zymano]

Tax something else like air or water.

But not speech. It's protected.

A bit is a bit is a bit

[evilned]

When will the FCC wake up and realize this simple idea. A bit flowing around the internet is the same thing whether it is part of a webpage, streaming video, or VoIP. Wanna clean stuff up? Clear out all the rules and make the regulations standard regardless of the type of data being delivered.

Regulators irrelevant

[nv5]

Once you have any data stream over IP, it is pretty difficult to regulate, since it can be disguised on varying port numbers, encryption (which is probably a good idea anyway) and other techniques. Regulation tends to work on the big conglomerates, since they operate so much in public. A homespun underground cottage industry movement is very difficult to control (see P2P). Therefore I find the discussions about regulating VoIP rather irrelevant.

Re:Regulators irrelevant

[ScooterBill]

The other interesting effect of this is that wiretapping will become obsolete since encryption of phone calls will be trivial to implement in software.

Listen closely...you can hear the FBI, CIA, etc., shaking in their boots over this possibility. I can't imagine that they'll just let it happen without a fight.

M

Re:Quainter: +1, Being and Freeing

[musikit]

if you surf around your own link you eventually get to this is anyone willing to help me out in the purchase of an Impeach Bush Lunch Box?

Fussing And Farting..Sheesh

[Bowie J. Poag]

Look, at the end of the day it's all the same anyway.. If you've got something they want, you can tell them what to do.

So don't be surprised they're making you and I fall in line. If you were smart, you'd be doing exactly the same.

Missing the point

[Marxist Commentary]

The point is not the revenue for the companies, it's revenue for the government. It simply isn't fair that the telephone companies are regulated, and so pay (albeit minimal) tax while the VOIP companies are not. Both providers should be heaviliy taxed, regardless of the money in hand for the corporations and their shareholders.

Re:Missing the point

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Exactly what planet are you from anyway? This is not a philosophical question, it is reality. The idea is for all people to have less taxes and more money to spend in the open market. Did someone give you that computer that you are using or did you have to pay for it like the rest of the world?

Re:Missing the point

[cyril3]

They are monopolies but did they become monopolies or were the monopolies granted to them. In Australia Telstra started as a monopoly and provided all telco services from day 1. In US as I understand it many entrants eventually became one Bell which had to be broken up and forced to 'compete'. We have the same problem with Telstra being forced to 'compete' with companies who lease their wire.

Apart from anti-monopolistic regulation and technical standards regulations and the USO what regulation is there. The tax people keep talking about is I presume the fees imposed to fund rural etc connections.

Is industry screaming to have new regulations in place to stop VOIP or is it merely a desire to have any regulations in place amended to fit a business dominated by VOIP rather than circuit switched calls.

The telcos have an investment in their wire and current systems. VOIP uses these as much as current methods. They will find a way to charge about the same total amount to someone. VOIP is free only while they work out a way to do that.

Pot Kettle

[JKR]

"So the FCC won't let me be or let me be me, so let me see." is the ACTUAL lyric in question, but never mind... ;)

it is emerging

[whovian]

VoIP is an itch that some people need to scratch and therefore it will happen (well, it *is* happening). To me the question that remains is whether the teleglomerates are onboard or not. Saith the people: You are either with us, or against us -- otherwise you'll just have to lobby the regulations so deeply so as to hinder voip usage/access.

POTS/PSTN Defined

[romper]

For non-telco-speaking Slashdotters..

POTS = Plain Old Telephone System
PSTN = Public Switched Telephone Network

Re:POTS/PSTN Defined

[Anonymous Coward]

Good fucking definition. So what do those things mean?

Re:POTS/PSTN Defined

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Good f[]ing definition. So what do those things mean?

POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service: The 48v (lower when connected), 100 ohm pair, 135ish v 20 hz square-wave ringer, two-wire, telephone service, and/or variants of it. (loop/ground/etc. start, touch-tone vs pulse dial, minor variations in standards with different vendors, etc.). The phone line to which you can hook up ordinary phones.

PSTN - Public Switched Telephone Network: The worldwide, multi-vendor, network that leases POTS lines (and other lines, such as base-rate and primary-rate ISDN) to essentially anyone who wants one, and switches calls between them. Think of it as the network hooking up everybody you can call from your home phone, by dialing or going through an operator. (Excludes some private networks, military/government networks such as AUTOVON, etc. though it may interconnect with them.)

One thing annoys me...

[Ziviyr]

All this talk about bridging VoIP with the phone system. I dan't care about the problems with that, I don't want to do it, I have no interest in it, and if somehow telemarketers start hitting me up on VoIP over it, I'm gunna go Bun Bun on them.

Eminem has shown that the FCC has a funky name

[t_allardyce]

Soon they will realise that voip is just another part of the internet and that they should have been regulating the whole internet all this time, then they will realise that actually the internet is just another form of human communication and thus speech and writing should be regulated. I propose a pen ownership license, and law enforcement needs to be aware that people might try and use their own blood as ink for lack of a pen. Also we need to divide up the audible sound spectrum and sell it off to the highest bidder, er humans can speak on 200 to 400Hz aslong as they own a general oparating license, dog whistles are classed as a low-power consumer transmitter.

The progression is inevitable

[ratpick]

We've gone from a nation of individualists to a nation of selfish individuals, all crying "Me! Me! Me!" to a government composed primarily of short-sighted, ignorant persons concerned only with placating the short-sighted, ignorant masses.

Our government has, therefore, become adept at siphoning money from us all in a manner that is least likely to attract negative attention (think payroll taxes). We all know the real purpose of VoIP "regulation" is to protect an outdated telecom business model and the tax revenue it generates, but until we are all willing to make some sacrifices, the downward spiral will continue.

Yeah I can see the dilemma...

[WarDancer]

They're hesitating between:

1. Providing a cheaper service to the users.
2. Make higher profits to screw consumers more.

I'm betting on #2 tactical donations.

Voip! Voip!

[madro]

[excerpted from today's Wall Street Journal, which has even more access restrictions than the New York Times. Paul Kedrosky, the author of the commentary, teaches business at the University of California, San Diego.]

Incumbent telecoms are tying themselves in knots over all this. They generally think that the current wave of upstart VOIP providers are getting a free ride given that they currently don't pay the same regulator-decreed access fees and subsidies. But incumbents are also smart enough to implicitly threaten to cut and run to VOIP themselves if the FCC gives competitors free rein in profitable voice markets.

But providers of VOIP service are only slightly less cynical. While they are getting scads of fawning press now, it is hard to imagine a future that includes most of them. Because six years or so from now we will almost certainly be calling from dedicated voice devices that plug directly into your high-speed Internet connection. You are no more likely to be billed for future phone calls than you are for current e-mails.

Call it the Napsterization of the phone business, where paying VOIP companies $35 a month for the privilege of connecting you via the Internet with the spendthrift sorts on the old telecommunications network will seem silly and unnecessary. The smartest thing most VOIP vendors could do now is quickly exploit VOIP-phoria to go public or get bought. Wait, that's what they are doing.

There is work left for regulators, like ironing out 911 and 411 access, as well as how law enforcement will tap Internet phone calls. But 911 issues didn't stop cell phones, and the arrival of e-mail that police could no longer steam open rightly didn't cause e-mail to be outlawed.

Re:Voip! Voip!

[hackermad]

Actually, law enforcement can already tap all internet traffic from a certain individual, special boxes have been created that they install at the local ISP, that supposedly can tap traffic from a certain customer and leave all other traffic alone. If i recall correctly though, a significant flaw was found in the first generation box that tapped other traffic as well, but i think they got that ironed out. 911 access still needs to be done though.

VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[dacarr]

Yes, I've said it, and here's my reasoning.

Consider what you need to do in order to get an analogue voice line: you call the phone company, answer a few questions, wait a short period of time (usually a few hours), and plug in the phone. Bang, you have a phone number and can call your mom. Ludicrously simple, and you don't need a child of five to do this.

(Yes, that's right, the old WC Fields axiom has been reversed - the more complex stuff amongst people who can't figure it out are best left to five year old children.)

Now what do you need for a VoIP line? A broadband TCP/IP connection. On a DSL this is redundant, so the cable companies are left with that option - and unless you are just wanting to blow money (or you really need reliability or uber speed), you probably don't have a T1 or better in the home. More or less simple (a quick rewire of your cabling), turn it on, bang, you have a phone and, again, can call mom.

But wait a moment. What of the twelve-o'clock flashers? You know, the people whose VCRs and similar persistently flash 12:00 because they don't know how to set them, or the people who need the tech support guy to tell them how to turn the computer on. These are people who don't understand the concept of RTFM, so they can't be bothered with how to pull a plug out of one hole and put it in another hole for fear of doing irreversable damage. Yes, you need a child for these people, but these people trust their own children even less with technology. Dead end.

The point of this is that, unless the telephone companies make radical changes in their hardware, VoIP will probably only have a small niche market amongst people who can figure out how to wire their own stereo, which (and this is strictly theory) seems to be the vast minority on the 'net - and then again, many of these people are probably not even *on* the 'net to begin with, thus excluding them from VoIP entirely. But they'll probably ask anyway.

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[RetroGeek]

Except that I have this really cool USB device.

It plugs into your USB port, you insert the CD, plug in a handset (complete with dial) into the device, and away you go.

Like digital cameras have become....

(Hey, if this is new, then I claim patent rights....)

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[radish]

Consider what you need to do in order to get an analogue voice line: you call the phone company, answer a few questions, wait a short period of time (usually a few hours), and plug in the phone. Bang, you have a phone number and can call your mom. Ludicrously simple, and you don't need a child of five to do this.


I recently had to do this (Verizon in NYC). It went more like...

Call the phone company. Get list of required documentation. Fax copies of documentation to phone company. Wait until next day. Call back. Answer lots of questions, get confused over the 19 gazillion local/local-toll/regional/long distance/international packages. Be glad prior research was done on the phone company's webpage. Wait _4_days_ for some engineer to flip a switch somewhere. Go buy phone handset. Plug in 4 days later - no dice. Call phone company again. Schedule engineer appointment for 2 days later. Get home to find note from engineer claiming all wiring in (2 year old) apartment needs replacing at a cost of $200. Find helpful person in building who knows what they are doing and have them fix dodgy phone jack which was damaged by decorators. Success! Basic phone service for $35 a month and only have to wait 8 days to get it working.

As soon as they'll accept my credit I'm going with Vonage. Order service, wait for delivery of box. Plug one cable into router, one into power supply. Attach phone handset. Configure options on webpage. Joy :)

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[dacarr]

I guess the moral of your story after mine is simple: "Your mileage may vary". =^_^=

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. VoIP has already affected POTS in that many carriers are using IP protocol and sofswitches to carry traffic over the fiber backbone. Also, most international calls that are not bound for Europe are transmitted via IP.

I also do not buy your argument that radical changes would need to be made to the telco's hardware in order for p2p voip to be practical. Cisco and Nortel both ofer voip routers that plug into your cable modem. Then you simply plug your phone into the router. All that a company really needs in order to make voip succeed is access to telephone numbers and a gateway into the PSTN in order to terminate traffic. This can easily be accomplished by partnering with one of the competitor exchange carriers.

Generally the large telcos do not support p2p voip because of the potential for it to eat into the huge profits they make on local service. Also, they have a huge (multi-billion dollar) investment in copper wire POTS which they want to protect. However, if it is deemed necessary, you can expect to see incumbent telcos providing local voip service.

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[mmurphy000]

But wait a moment. What of the twelve-o'clock flashers? You know, the people whose VCRs and similar persistently flash 12:00 because they don't know how to set them, or the people who need the tech support guy to tell them how to turn the computer on. These are people who don't understand the concept of RTFM, so they can't be bothered with how to pull a plug out of one hole and put it in another hole for fear of doing irreversable damage.

What you are saying, though, isn't that VoIP won't affect POTS, but rather that a vast stretch of society won't be able to get broadband because they can't program a VCR. There's sufficient money in broadband that broadband providers will make it easier and easier to get broadband set up, so even those lacking technical chops will be able to get their home set up on broadband. As you note, VoIP isn't that hard once broadband is set up, so the limits you cite will slowly fade away as broadband gets easier to set up.

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[Phrack]

You forgot one more example: rural lines that have no DSL or cable modem exposure. Unless it gets economically viable to add DSL equipment into rural cabinets, you'll see no broadband there. Satellite delay is not suitable. I don't have experience with wireless broadband, but it's not able to get everywhere, economically. I mean standard G711 quality voice, not iChat and the like.

Oh, you could introduce an IP backbone for the PSTN terminals at the customer prem, or for cell carriers, but customers don't care about that. As a matter of fact, working for a IP telephony provider, I find that most (if not all) of the customers don't care if the trunks use Morse code, as long as they get dialtone when they pick up the handset.

Here's some other interesting problems for one to think about in providing VoIP. Not saying that they aren't unsolvable, just saying that they must be considered.
- E911 - how do you solve the problem that the phone number can no longer be reliably tied to an address?
- reliability - the Internet isn't going to meet 5 9's reliability metrics, what's the acceptable limit? Will you tolerate 95% of your calls being problem free?
- add your own security point (pen trace, RTP stream capture, CALEA requirements, etc..)

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[Greger47]

I just gotta know. How long did it take to get that internet conection installed and running?

/greger

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[radish]

That would be:

Call cable company, spend 10 minutes going through everything, yes I'd like the "super duper everything package please". Schedule an appointment with an engineer for the next day. Take the afternoon off work, make coffee for engineer, plug cat5 into cable modem & pc. Done.

Couldn't have been a more different experience from the phone company.

FWIW, TWNYC vs Verizon.

Re:VOIP won't drastically affect POTS

[anthony_dipierro]

It plugs into your USB port, you insert the CD, plug in a handset (complete with dial) into the device, and away you go.

Wow. Good thing I have USB ports throughout my house. Oh, wait a second.

Skype

[Pii]

I think you're talking about Skype.

Haven't tried it out yet myself, but 3.3+ Megadownloads can't be wrong.

And our Mexican Neighbors?

[chadjg]

What can they do about this? It seems to me that they would be nicely positioned to take over telecommunications for huge chunks of the U.S. population.

Obvious problems might include language issues, and a funky regulatory climate, but that isn't any big deal.

I'd really like to know, if screw it up here in the U.S. what will Mexico do?

Re:Great?

[Matt - Duke '05]

Nahh.. that already happened to my post

Infrastructure?

[hayh]

I think the main reason VoIP isn't going to take over global telecom is the fact that in many places the infrastructure is lacking. In the Caribbean -for example-, a lot of people still prefer pots because voip on dialup results in... well, crap.

Disclaimer: No, I actually have not rtfa.

Re: Government Lifeboats

[jallen02]

It is called emissions testing.

I have a modded 87 Mustang that would be subjected to the restrictions there in Calgary.

Through diligent and careful tuning my car has emissions like that of a new car combined with an average gas mileage of about 26mpg. (Best part: 315 RWHP, 2700lb curb weight.. or about 1.5 times the RWHP of most performance sedans, half the weight of a medium-large SUV, and twice the gas mileage of a larger SUV).

My car should is tested to the same emissions standard. (Here in ATL it is) If it meets the requirements I can continue driving it, if it does not I have to make it so or spend some amount of money attempting to make it so. Any other regulation is simply silly. For all the goverment knows I could put a brand new LE engine in my old beater car :)

Jeremy

Internet is erasing the middleman company

[Hackie_Chan]

The internet has already started to show it's power to fundamentally change everything that has to do with our society. All the media middlemen will vanish now when we all have direct connect possibilites with each other. The Record Companies will die since iTunes Music Store's don't really give them an job to do at all -- all you need is a computer and you can buy music out of the box. That we're losing another middleman here, the telephone company, is nothing suprising since communicating through the computer is just another form of media.

Re:Internet is erasing the middleman company

[EvlG]

Here's a hint.

iTunes music store is a middleman.

So at best we have replaced one middleman with another.

IP v.6

[KrackHouse]

If ever there was a technology begging for IP v.6 it's VOIP. We supposedly have an impending shortage of IPv4 addresses. Seems like a logical solution considering the infancy of this technology.

Re:Other quoes by your "great philosopher"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I don't think many officially great philosophers would do much better by that standard. You probably don't want to go looking to the Greeks and Romans for racial tolerance, a clean mouth, or respect for the opposite sex... Just a thought.

Re:Not as long as it is a 'linux only' product.

[xadhoom]

Gnomemeeting is a panic and only a client...
Vocal... bah... is only an ifrastructure, you'll need a lot of integration to make a decent VoIP server and only supports SIP...
Linphone... never been able to make it work correctly (even patching the code...) , perhaps too Vocal-centric ?
Bayonne... more platforms! ah ah! you meant more "dialogic cards only"...

btw, Asterisk supports sip,h323,mgcp ... supports standard tdm technologie (pri/pra,bri(te/nt)), supports analog techs (fxo/fxs) ... all in 1 software, giving same services to all technologies, making then interoperate without issue. to obtain that you'll need at least one vocal server, one h323 gatekeerper, one bayonne server for pstn gw....
sorry, but asterisk if a lot more than a simple hobbist soft-pbx... many VoIP termination services run with asterisk... give me an example of one termination service running with only 1 soft-pbx platform, if you can.

just my 2 cents.
a fellow asterisk user.

Re:Other quoes by your "great philosopher"

[jeeryg_flashaccess]

Maybe not philosopher, but he sure knows how to push peoples buttons. Likes yours :) for the last two bullets, please read this article... summary: he was young and stupid, was DATING a black girl (so he's not the racist that the Source claimed) and was pissed. We've all said stupid stuff before right?

Besides, those are just a few quotes. And you just chose bad ones.

How about this one:
"Now you probably get this picture from my public persona that I'ma pistol packin' drug addict who bags on his mama. / But I wanna to just take this time out to be perfectly honest, cuz there's a lot of shit I keep bottled that hurts deep inside / of my soul. And just know that I grow colder the older I grow. This boulder on my shoulder gets heavy and harder to hold, / and this load is like the weight of the world, and I think my neck is breakin'. Should I just give up or try to live up to these expectations? / Now look, I love my daughter more than life in itself, but I got a wife that's determined to make my life livin' hell. / But I handle it well, given the circumstances I'm dealt. So many chances, man, it's too bad - could have had someone else/ But the years that I've wasted is nothing to the tears that I've tasted, so here's what I'm facin'?3 felonies, 6 years of probation. / I've went to jail for this woman, I've been to bat for this woman. I've taken bats to people's backs, bent over backwards for this woman. / Man, I should have seen it coming. What did I stick my penis up in? Wouldn't have ripped the pre-nup up if I'da seen what she was fuckin.' / But fuck it, it's over. There's no more reason to cry no more. I got my baby, baby the only lady that I adore / (Hailie). So sayonara, try tommorra, nice to know ya. Our baby's traveled back to the arms of her rightful owner. / And suddenly it seems like my shoulder blades have just shifted. It's like the greatest gift you could get. The weight has been lifted."

Consider how regulation is good

[RebornData]

I listened to some of the FCC discussion on CSPAN, and with all the mindless "let VOIP be free" perspectives being spouted here, let me raise a few of the more valid concerns I heard with letting VOIP go completely unregulated (and forecasting a dramatic drop in POTS usage as broadband spreads and people use it for phone):

1. Emergency use:
VOIP will not have the level of reliability of POTS, especially during natural disasters and other emergencies. In theory an IP network can be made just as reliable, but the simple issue of powering the phones is a big issue... the phone system generally has been significantly more reliable than the power system. With a VOIP phone, you're dead if you lose power. Traditional phones keep going.

This may seem like a small issue, but an example cited during the hearing was a major weather-related power outage in California, where the utility determined after the fact that customers were less annoyed by the fact that the power was off than the fact that the phone system at the power company was not equipped to give them good repair status information. People count on the phone system, and it needs to be there, especially for 911 emergency use.

2. Funding and effectiveness of 911
The 911 system is funded by POTS and cellular surcharges. Even a 25% drop in POTS usage due to VOIP would be disasterous from a funding perspective. And remember that when you call 911 from a landline (and in more and more areas, cellular), they know where you are. VOIP is extremely far away from having any sort of location capability.

3. Funding of Universal Access
Everyone in the country has access to phone service, no matter how rural / remote they are. This has been a tremendously important program, but would have funding problems similar to 911 if a big chunk of POTS goes away.

Anyway, my point is that despite how "retro" POTS is technically, it has significant merits that VOIP currently does not provide. I'm not suggesting that any of the problems described above are unsolveable for VOIP, but I think it's awfully unlikely that "market forces" will magically provide the answers. There needs to be some regulation in order that the good in POTS is preserved going forward.

Re:Consider how regulation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

And where did people get the idea that we're all entitled to equal services? Or entitled to emergency services? If you can afford it, buy it. If you can't, oh well. It is not the place of government to spread the wealth around or to help you in an emergency. Its only justifiable purpose is to protect you from people who attempt to violate your right to life, liberty, or the PURSUIT of happiness.

Re:Consider how regulation is good

[rajohn]

Unversal access is mandated by the regulating body, which was mandated by congress to create a regulation that embodied the principals it embraced, as the elected representative body of the people. Ergo, the people provided the idea.

Too bad you don't understand democracy

Re:Consider how regulation is good

[mkendall]

Everyone in the country has access to phone service, no matter how rural / remote they are. This has been a tremendously important program...

Important to whom? Oh, the people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps they should pay for it, rather than expecting their choice to be subsidized by the rest of us.

Re:Consider how regulation is good

[anthony_dipierro]

Emergency use

This is an argument against VoIP, not an argument against regulating VoIP. We don't force people to have telephones, after all, so regulation is irrelevant.

Personally, I have no need for a land line, but it has nothing to do with VoIP. In an emergency, I can just use my cell phone. I do have a land line, but that's because my ADSL service requires that I have one. The only place I've ever given my land-line number to is my bank, who wouldn't accept my cell phone number as it was located in a different state.

Funding and effectiveness of 911

The solution to that is simple. Fund 911 some other way. Property taxes makes the most sense.

And remember that when you call 911 from a landline (and in more and more areas, cellular), they know where you are. VOIP is extremely far away from having any sort of location capability.

Again, not an argument about regulation, an argument against VoIP. However, it's not a very good argument. VoIP is extremely far away from having any sort of location capability because VoIP is extremely far away from happening. In fact, I doubt it will ever happen. It doesn't have any real advantages. For long distances, switched networks can be cheaper, but it's easy to digitize the call at the CO and send it over a switched network from there. In fact, it's being done already, and for international calls sent over satellites it has been done for many years.

Funding of Universal Access

Screw universal access. You want to live out in the sticks, you can pay extra.

I'm not suggesting that any of the problems described above are unsolveable for VOIP, but I think it's awfully unlikely that "market forces" will magically provide the answers.

"Market forces" already have provided the answers. Except for limited situations (basically as an alternative to a large PBX system), VoIP is stupid, and it isn't succeeding.

FCC regulatory leanings are mostly harmless ...

[Precipitous]

This story's poster probably should have read the articles before concluding that the government was on the path to regulating VoIP out of existence. Most of the FCC's regulatory leanings on this seem harmless to me.

See the opening remarks.

Mostly harmless leanings:

Chairman Powell: No regulator, either federal or state, should tread into this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so."

Good - looks like they are trying to avoid stopping the technology with excessive regulation.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Wants to ensure 911 access. Quite an acceptable use of government regulatory authority. Hard to see how this could be a burden on VoIP systems.

Not mostly harmless

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: His first point was to bring up the concerns of the DOJ and FBI that they might have trouble wiretapping VoIP. Aside from the civil rights concerns, one can image many technical problems with this:
1. FCC mandates that US based VoIP firms provide a means for the DOJ / FBI to listen in.
2. VoIP firms outside US jurisdiction don't bother carrying out this mandate.
3. Those with something to hide use foreign VoIP firms.

On the whole, it looks like the current direction is not towards stifling over regulation. I don't see any signs of prostration to big monopolies in the chairman's or commissioners' remarks. Nonetheless, it's certainly advisable to let the FCC know your opinions and concerns to ensure that the eventual FCC conclusions are well-informed.

Regulation != Bad

[i_r_sensitive]

Folks keep hammering on the evils of regulation, this is an absolute fallacy and needs to squashed now.

First of all, what about the regulations which mandated performance expectatiuons. Phone service has traditionally been viewed as an essential service, some of these regulations stipulate uptimes for phone networks, etc. etc. The net effect of these has been that the consumer expects the phone to work, reliably, every time. VoIP providers (other than the big telecomms players) by and large will not be able to meet this expectation, or rather will be at the mercy of infrastructure they don't control, and organizations they have no binding agreements with.

Some of these regulations have also made it unlawful for private individuals to tap each others phones. (This being a right reserved to the government, who supposes they own the electrons involved anyways...) Without the private networks owned by the telcos, and the regulatory controls placed on those networks, wiretapping becomes a skill that the current generation of script kiddies can master in three hours. It's all data folks, it can be diverted, copied, folded, mutilated, spindled just like form data. Sure it can be encrypted, but there is some fairly significant overhead involved, without crypto hardware, I think you would notice degraded conversation quality.

Besides, do we really want to offer the marketing organizations a way to converge SPAM and telemarketing?

Re:Regulation != Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"Regulation == Bad"

This is so typical of the "market will fix everything" type of thinking that has become so prevalent thanks to the Rush Limbaugh (druggie) ilk.

If corporations WERE trustworthy to police themselves (remember, a corporation can't go to jail.) then we wouldn't need government to keep them in line.

As long as there are Enrons, Worldcoms, Microsofts, AT&Ts, "Private" schools, and any other for-profit corporations providing infrastructure, we need regulations to keep them honest, because believe me, without that, they'll run right over the consumer every time!!

Re:Regulation != Bad

[i_r_sensitive]

Actually, that is the exact function of government, to tell businesses and individuals what they can or cannot do.

Your position, which I will refer to as the XAS (eXtreme Adam Smith) has NEVER worked in the real world. If you don't remember, ask your folks or grand folks about the Great Depression, that chapter killed XAS once and for all in the real world. The closest thing we have now is FOSS, which believe or not, does stay in-line with the law, and seeks to honor and uphold those laws without which it is no more than a pipe dream.

Without regulation their would be no FOSS. FOSS relies on the copyright mechanism to enforce the rights of code authors to dispose of their code as they see fit. The protections built into copyright law are a keystone in the FOSS movement. This is why enlightened FOSS folk bemoan the abuses of copyright law, not the fact of copyright law.

In any case, the job of government is to tell business and individuals what they can and cannot do, and to outline and enforce penalties for violating these laws. These powers of government are (at least in most Western Democracies) derived from the ruled, with their consent. The beauty of this process is that should you have serious problems with this fact, you can exercise your freedom to live under another set laws by moving, and you have the freedom to change the law by particpation.

In view of your options to change things for yourself, by moving somewhere with a better regulatory framework for you, or by particpating and convincing enough of your fellow citizens that your position has merit, I find it puzzling that you would choose the method guaranteed not to make a single differemce. That being to mouth useless reactionary slogans on /.. How exactly did your post make your life better? How exactly did it make my life, or any /.ers life better?

Come off it, you even have to snipe as an AC. Really standing up for what you believe in, aren't you? Well, here I am, ready to withstand the best muck you can anonymously and cowardly sling at me. At the end of the day, are you any closer to realizing your (poorly considered) goals, or am I? (Hint: the more muck you throw at me, the less you do in terms of making changes, and I'm not the one with a adolescent reaction to authority,,,)

I may have to quit /. if the quality of faceless craven comments doesn't improve real soon...

Yes, mod me down for trolling, I deserve it, after all, it is still trolling, no matter how poorly the fish fights.

Re:Regulation != Bad

[i_r_sensitive]

Wait a second here pal...

You say that it doesn't matter what good or evil an unjust government does, the fact that it is an unjust government is sufficient to condemn it.

That implies that is doesn't matter what good or evil a just government does, the fact that it is a just government absolves it.

But, that's a big lie, isn't it? You do care about the evil and good done. In fact it is your interpretation of these which has caused you to arrive at the conclusion the government is unjust.

Kind of hammers the utility of your argument. What came first? Was the government unjust, therefore you spurn both the good and evil it does, or did the evils done convince you that the government is unjust. We all know it was the latter. Governments. people. things. are not just or unjust on the basis of molecular chemistry or something equally immutable. No, just and unjust are value judgements made on the basis of a host of factors, including the evil and good done, and the evil and good intended.

In point of fact, the false logic you are using has most often, and most recently been used, in the service of dictators of all stripes. I've seen the Anonymous Coward's sentiments in the writings of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

Because what you are doing is putting ideals in front of reality, just like the above named personalities. Collective farming was bad, it didn't grow enough food to feed the Soviet Union. But it was a communist idea, so whether it was good or not was secondary. Rounding up people of a different religion and slaughtering them like animals was evil, but it was for the greater glory of the reich, so wether it was good or evil was secondary. Closer to home, persecuting people for communist party membership, or being friends of a Communist party memeber was evil, but it was to protect democracy, so wether it was good or evil was secondary. Rape and murder of innocents was common during the crusades, but the bishops and cardinals cheered them on because it was for the greater glory of God, and the fact that these acts were evil, was secondary.

So, if anyone is liable to put us in the hands of a dictator, it will be people like you my friend, who can;t see the forest despite all the trees. It will be you and other's like you, who can;t see the reality for the hype. It will be folks like yourself, more wedded to ideas than deeds.

Re:How quaint. Wireless

[glenrm]

I wonder why wireless operations were spun off from ATT and why Sprint has a tracking stock for the wireless side of the biz. Maybe as a safety net if VoIP is not put under control of the telco conglomerates either via FCC opposing such a move or through a technical inability to control such software. It is not a sure thing that the telco conglomerates will control VoIP.

Bigger question

[EmbeddedJanitor]

There are numerous responses to what I said here. It sounds to me like there's a bigger question:

Has the FCC outlived its role?

If you go trawl the www you'll probably find that the FCC was set up to ensure that telecommunications got rolled out effectively across the USA. I doubt the original intention was to control telecoms for the benefit of the telcos.

Maybe, in this age of more-or-less global and ubiquitous telecoms, the FCC has completed its role and is no longer relevant.

I Disagree

[Angram]

I disagree. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you, but the 12:00ers have proven that if they see enough benefit they can learn just enough to get what they want. P2P networks, CD burning, cell phones, and email are just a few examples of what people who have no technological ability can do today. I know many people who cannot find the power button on any computer but their own and have no hope of setting a VCR clock, yet can burn CDs full of MP3s they've found on Kazaa, etc.

Granted...

[Atragon]

But the barrier to entry is a lot lower, you don't need a multi-million dollar infrastructure to run servers, but you do to run that same distribution empire in the B&M world.

Re:Granted...

[EvlG]

You don't think you need multi-million dollar investment to run a stable server farm for 24/7 world-wide fault tolerant access? And to develop and maintain the applications consumers use to access the service? And to advertise or otherwise promote the service to users? And to negotiate contracts with artists and other recording groups to sell content?

I think you are underestimating the task.

What constitutes VoIP?

[rips123]

If I encapsulate voice over IPX and then tunnel that to a remote location, is that VoIP? What if I define my own layer-3 protocol and use GRE tunnelling to connect with the remote party? How can you form a clear definition of VoIP let alone regulate it? If you don't use a well-known protocol, there aren't even any tell-tale signatures that a sniffer could look for.

Here IPSec! Come here. Good boy...

[richard_willey]

I am surprised that no-one has yet noted that opportunistic encryption is a very simple "solution" to this issue, along with a host of other related problems.

Many people, myself included, object to "smart network" architectures. I dislike networks in which intermediate devices such as routers and switches provide a host of value added services like Quality of Service, tracking Napster users, or taxing VoIP traffic. I prefer network designs in which "smart" end nodes are linked together by "Big Dumb Pipes".

The best way to preserve this type of architecture is to start deploying point-to-point encryption on a massive scale. The network can only provide value added services if it is capable of understanding the traffic that you are sending.

This hurts

[BCW2]

My only problem with free VOIP is when the phone lines start degrading. As much as I hate my over priced, inflated phone bill. If 40% of their customers go to the free service, who pays for line maintenance and how? These same lines deliver the web. Does that mean my access charge will double? Something to think about.

Re:Great?

[silicon not in the v]

Heh, that's a clever trick to post a link to your first post that got modded down so it can be seen again. That's doing an end run around the modding system, which many Slashdotters would say you should live with it. In your case, though, I agree with you--pretty unfair mod.

Only commercial VoIP regulated

[me.nick()]

I always thought the question at hand was whether to regulate COMMERCIAL VoIP and it's providers, not voice over internet in general. I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense. Regulating VoIP between two end users over the internet is just bullshi* because all it is is another data transfer, be it digitized voice or whatever, its all data.

The POTS telcos are regulated, but if I string copper from my house to the guys house down the street, will they start regulating me?! I don't think so.

And even if something as absurd as government regulation of end-to-end VoIP ever came into practice, couldn't we just encapsulate the SIP or H.323, or whatever voice protocol into another protocal (or even encrypt), then how could they even detect we were transmitting and receiving voice.

Interesting questions...who pays for what?

[mattmcal]

A good piece from Grant Gross of the IDG News Service posted on TheStandard.com... "But others at the forum questioned whether VoIP vendors would include services for the disabled, for example, or pay access fees for connecting to the traditional phone network if not required by the FCC. Access fees now charged throughout the telecommunications industry help keep some small telephone service providers in business, said Carl Wood, a commissioner with the California Public Utilities Commission. But other participants questioned if VoIP providers should have to pay access fees if they route an entire telephone call by IP, instead of using part of the public switched telephone network."

Re:Death and taxes

[calidoscope]

911? Nope, better have the police on speed dial.

And it still wouldn't get you the same service as 911.

One of the benefits of a landline is that the 911 operators have your address on the screen when they take the call - and many jurisdictions will send someone out if there is a hang-up.

In California, 911 calls from cell phones are handled by the CHP, which may not be as helpful as the normal 911 dispatch.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Regulators not really irrelevant.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Once you have any data stream over IP, it is pretty difficult to regulate, since it can be disguised on varying port numbers, encryption (which is probably a good idea anyway) and other techniques.

Unfortunately, to be a network you need to conform to a standard - in order to connect to all the OTHER users of the network. This exposes you to the regulators.

The techniques you describe would work fine for a small, closed community such as a criminal gang, terrorist cell, recreational club, or other small affinity group (until they were infiltrated by a government agent, of course. B-) ) But they would not work for a general, worldwide, everybody-with-a-VoIP-phone-can-play network.

Of course regulation attempts will drive herds of early-adopters from one VoIP variant to another in an effort to avoid them. But that's the sort of Red Queen's race where the costs of running exceed the costs of NOT running and eventually the bulk of the users will settle on a standard and pay a tax in order to stay connected and/or avoid hassle (or arrest).

Please...

[JohnDenver]

You almost had my sympathy when it dawned on me:

This is a Commercial News Outlet

This isn't some hobby website on a shoestring budget, therefore it should be subjected to the same criticism that CNN, Fox News, or any other influential news outlet should be subject to...

If you don't like the criticism, don't read them. I personally VALUE comments like these as indicators of how people feel about Slashdot insofar as I'm concerned that Slashdot maintains an acceptable reputation for a serious forum of discussion.

...and yes. Sometimes it IS Funny.

Bitch! (Sorry, name calling seemed appropriate.)

Re:Please...

[Dhalka226]

This is a Commercial News Outlet [. . .] it should be subjected to the same criticism that CNN, Fox News, or any other influential news outlet should be subject to

Come now. First of all, I hardly consider a few banners and the ability to buy your way out of them "commerical news." I don't consider somebody else paying for everything "commercial news." And even if the editors are pulling in salaries--and I don't know if they are or not--the two groups still can not be compared for several reasons.

1) Slashdot is a niche site. How many pro-Windows articles have you seen lately? How many great submissions applauding Microsoft's successful business ventures? A handful? None? The site is not meant to apply to everybody and it is not meant to be bias-free. In fact it lives largely on bias. I see no reasons the editors or submitters should be expected to rein in their bias if the commenters don't have to rein in theirs. (See #2.) Besides, if you're telling me Fox News reins in their biases, you're out of your mind.

2) The main appeal of Slashdot is the comments, not the news. A quick search of Yahoo or Google can find most of the news stories. The value is in coming here and reading the reactions of people. The value is the community that has surfaced around the site. The best thing here is that there is some sort of expert on just about any topic that comes up here; there are always some people who have experienced what is reported on or can add other insights to them. When Fox News or CNN lets every Joe Citizen off the street who wants to talk about a subject into the studio, then perhaps I'll buy the comparison.

3. Even if the editors were made multi-millionaires for dedicating their day to Slashdot--and again, I do not know one way or another (minus the exaggeration)--their work on stories is minimal. The average submitter is not an editor, they are readers like you or I. So even in the event that editors might deserve to be held to higher standards as a "commercial news source," we damn sure shouldn't be bitching about the volunteers submitting articles for us to read.

I personally VALUE comments like these as indicators of how people feel about Slashdot insofar as I'm concerned that Slashdot maintains an acceptable reputation for a serious forum of discussion.

Insofar as Slashdot maintains an acceptable reputation for a serious forum of discussion. Yes. Where does "has anyone noticed that most of the 'submitter's' writeups fall into the poor category?" fall in to serious discussion? What does it add to the article? What does slamming the submitter for "his slant and myriad questions" help to provide? And what the hell is wrong for a submitter to provide those myriad questions to provoke discussion? Why is that a capital offense around here?

If you don't like the criticism, don't read them

Preface your nonsense with a title of "USELESS CRITICISM - DON'T READ" and I will oblige. And yes, it is useless. The sheer volume of it should tell you that even if you really are concerned about it, it's not doing a damn bit of good. So save the breath and save those of us who don't want to read it the headache.

Bitch! (Sorry, name calling seemed appropriate.)

You're ever so funny. Really.

Re:Other quoes by your "great philosopher"

[Guppy06]

Personally, I think my favorite Eminem quote is "Not guilty, your honor."

Re:Skype (Vendor Lock-in?)

[mianbao]

Used Skype. Works great.

But I'm afraid of vendor lock-in, so I'll rather use SIP/H.323

Re:Does Anyone Here Know Anything?

[mianbao]

1. It doesn't connect to existing internal home wiring and telephone sets without a lot of extra cost. Only geeks and their tolerant mothers make computer calls.

Yamaha has a Volante RT57i broadband router, that allows you to plug in your analog phone, similar to Cisco's Analog Phone Adaptor (ATA). You can theoretically put a PABX behind that to route more calls if you have the bandwidth.

2. It needs QoS, and QoS ain't free. Look at Vonage. It's not free, and extra LD is >3 cents a minute. AT&T service through Sam's Club costs less than that!

QoS ain't free, but if you have tried VoIP, you'll know that the quality is decent without QoS. Overprovision of bandwidth has been the solution to QoS. Given that the amount of bandwidth used for VoIP is not very high, especailly with the newer codecs.

Business users may pay a premium for QoS, but individuals are likely to live with a "much cheaper" alternative, and switching over to a premium service when required.

3. You need a broadband connection for VoIP, plus you pay an extra charge. Think $30-$50 for broadband, and $15-$35 a month to the VoIP carrier which is what they charge for the QoS plus whatever the terminating carrier bills them for access to the PSTN.

It would be strange if people pays for broadband just to get VoIP. But for those whoa are already paying for broadband, VoIP is a cheap (if not free, like Free World Dial) alternative. PSTN termination problem still exist, but, more friends on VoIP means less termination charge.

4. By contrast, I beseech you ignorant slobs to check out an outfit called Cellsocket.com. They sell a doohickey that holds your cellphone. You plug it into your home wiring and disconnect your home wiring at the NID. Voila, all calls to and from your house go over the cellular network but you can use your regular home phones.

Interesting device, where I live, land call charges are cheaper than cell call charges. Anyway, with 802.11 (and 802.16), you have a hybrid cell phone that does both CDMA/GSM/TDMA and VoIP

Re:Does Anyone Here Know Anything?

[nbahi15]

1. It doesn't connect to existing internal home wiring and telephone sets without a lot of extra cost. Only geeks and their tolerant mothers make computer calls.

Yes it does. Just that simple, you can take an ATA-186 from Cisco, $50 from Vonage and connect it to your inside wiring. Other providers have a similar system. BTW the black box (ATA186) requires no configuration, and no computer to function.

2. It needs QoS, and QoS ain't free. Look at Vonage. It's not free, and extra LD is >3 cents a minute. AT&T service through Sam's Club costs less than that!

$29.99 Unlimited Long distance in the USA, and some providers are offering unlimited International at the $39.99 per month level. QOS is not used, nor required. Technically speaking the ToS bits are set but nobody I know is paying for it.

3. You need a broadband connection for VoIP, plus you pay an extra charge. Think $30-$50 for broadband, and $15-$35 a month to the VoIP carrier which is what they charge for the QoS plus whatever the terminating carrier bills them for access to the PSTN.

I pay for plain ADSL. I set the call bandwidth to 30k on the web page which gives me good voice quality, and I can still surf the web while talking.

4. By contrast, I beseech you ignorant slobs to check out an outfit called Cellsocket.com. They sell a doohickey that holds your cellphone. You plug it into your home wiring and disconnect your home wiring at the NID. Voila, all calls to and from your house go over the cellular network but you can use your regular home phones.

Talk about expensive. And in my building, in downtown San Francisco, I would be hard pressed to get a signal.

You are missing the point that essentally VoIP is rapidly gaining ground. I would even say that we are moving out of the early adopter stage and into the real people phase.

Re:Something does need to be regulated

[dbrower]

Cool. I've never been moderated as flamebait before , and wouldn't have expected it for a fairly reasoned and thoughtfull post.

Letting the market rule is a neat idea, but laws regulation exists to keep people from being raped, literally and figuratively.

The voip lunch ain't gonna be free as in beer.

-dB

Global 800 Audioconference == Free Global LD

[dre23]

The FCC already opened this up in 1997 through allowing Global 800 numbers. That means that in China, people can dial toll-free to China and the conference will be linked to a toll-freee US/Canada 800/888/877/866 number. This is old news. SS7 has made this "legal" for over 6 years now.

The only difference with VoIP is that it's cheaper+easier to encrypt (and subvert).

Eminem

[pdjohe]

I thought your great philosopher said...

The FCC won't let me be
Or let me be me
So let me see
They wanta shut me down on MTV
But it feels so emtpy
Without me

So...

The FCC won't let [VoIP] be
Or let [VoIP] be [VoIP]
So let [VoIP] see
They wanta shut [VoIP] down on [my IP]
But it feels so emtpy
Without [VoIP]

Many good points BUT.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The first half of your post makes a number of points I've been trying to make here at work, to people you might characterize as "IP weenies". (They aren't onboard with VoIP yet. But they seem to think the digital convergence will occur by suddenly replacing all existing networks in toto with IP nets, inventing replacements for all previous wheels in IP format. No staged transition. No interfacing with legacy systems. Avoid all "That TDM shit" (actual quote at VP level) like the plague.)

Pity you posted as an AC. I'd love to get together with you to talk strategy.

But VoIP isn't doomed, or even an uneconomic proposition right now. It just isn't quite ready to take over the ENTIRE world in one go.

For instance: A recent slashdot story told of how a college in Tennessee installed $3M of Cisco VoIP equipment and cut its phone bill by over $6M/year. The equipment pays for itself in under 6 months, and the phone company is out a LOT of green.

And THAT's a BIG driving force for deployment of VoIP, and the collapse of the existing TDM telecom infrastructure. (Once they collapse, of course, their TDM long-haul equipment doesn't go away - it just becomes available on-the-cheap to new IP-based providers, further lowering the costs and accellerating the industry's collapse.)

Yes, existing equipment (including especially Cisco's) doesn't do QoS right in all circumstances. But there are already workarounds for local plants and last-miles, with solutions being worked on for the network core. As more QoS-requiring traffic moves to the internet, there will be a financial incentive for providers to get QoS right in the core networ: They can charge more for transient end-to-end reserved bandwidth with delivery and latency guarantees. (And thus reinvent "long-distance toll-call connections" in the IP context.)

Crypto not a problem

[sakyamuni]

Sure it can be encrypted, but there is some fairly significant overhead involved, without crypto hardware, I think you would notice degraded conversation quality.

I am pleased to report that the crypto part is not a problem. According to its documentation, Skype employs a 256-bit AES cipher -- currently sufficient to please even the paranoid -- and on my lowly 400 MHz P3 box such a conversation uses about 40% of the CPU. The sound quality is about the same as POTS and only slightly worse than my Packet 8 service (VOIP).

What surprised me most, however, is that the time-delay with Skype was, to my ears, about the same as with Packet 8! This is fairly easy to test. Call your cell phone from your VOIP phone and put one on the left ear and the other on the right, while making utterances of your choice. If you have two PCs where you can connect one to a VPN (to give the data some distance to travel), you'll be able to do the same with two separate Skype accounts.

Ever consider Ballooning?

[JohnDenver]

Let's just say you'd save yourself a lot of money on fuel for hot air.

1. Slashdot is not a niche site that only reports Kernal release. It's a VERY popular source of tech and science news with a readership capable of performing many inadvertant DOS attacks. That alone makes criticising Slashdot nessecary.

2. You then go on about how the comments makes Slashdot great hinting CNN and Fox could learn something from Slashdot. Well, how about that? WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF YOU COULD MAKE JOKES ABOUT FOX NEW'S SPIN (ON FOX NEWS) LIKE YOU CAN ON SLASHDOT???

You're missing the entire point of comments. Comments are there to balance the story if it's incorrect, misleading, of outright manipulative.

Sometimes a particular submitter keeps making the same mistakes OVER and OVER again. Why should we have to shut up, because you tolerate low standards? I want to hear what people with higher standards have to say, and I want the submitters to hear the criticism targeted at them.

Don't you think public scrutany is an important part of an open discussion?

You're ever so funny. Really.

And you are that humorless? Not familiar with injecting a dumb joke for levity sake? You're supposed to use a dumb joke so that you inflict some of the damage on yourself. It's like an olive branch that says, "Don't take me so serious."

Re:Ever consider Ballooning?

[Dhalka226]

If you had read what I wrote, you would note that everything I said about CNN and Fox News was in illustrating that they are NOT the same as Slashdot. I never said they had anything to learn. Those are your words and they're ridiculous. They're completely different mediums. What works on one will not work on another.

Slashdot is not a niche site that only reports Kernal release

Where did I mention the world "kernal" and where did I say that my examples of Microsoft are the end-all be-all? I used them simply because they are the best known and most polar topic here. Slashdot is a niche site even if that niche is as broad as "news for nerds."

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF YOU COULD MAKE JOKES ABOUT FOX NEW'S SPIN (ON FOX NEWS) LIKE YOU CAN ON SLASHDOT???

You can bash CNN and Fox News the same way you do people here. And guess what? I'd tell you to change the fucking channel and stop whining the same way I'm telling you in the current context.

Sometimes a particular submitter keeps making the same mistakes OVER and OVER again.

Your bitching makes a world of difference I'm sure. And who says they're mistakes? That sounds awfully egotistical to me. But we'll get to that of course.

Don't you think public scrutany is an important part of an open discussion?

Absolutely. Scrutinize the article. Scrutinize their conclusions. Scrutinize other peoples scrutinizations. But I don't want to hear people complaining about spelling, or grammar, or the fact that a submitter asks questions or provides their conclusions or any number of the rest of the crap some people around here love to complain about. I want to hear about the ARTICLE. I want to hear opinions on the SUBJECT MATTER. That's why I read the articles, that's why I read the comments. Not to hear people piss and moan that it wasn't submitted to their specifications.

should we have to shut up, because you tolerate low standards?

You are either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. I happen to agree with some of the criticism. I happen to agree that editorializing should not be a part of the submission. But I do not agree that the submitters should be taken to task about it, least of all not where everybody else has to read the complaint about it.

Hell, if you and whomever else insists upon spouting off at the submitters, do it privately. They have a better chance of reading it, for one, and they will likely take it more seriously when they see you took the time to compose a reasonable e-mail stating your concerns rather than fingering the reply button and bitching. And, of course, it saves the rest of us from reading your complaints.

However, the bottom line is that I am not egotistical enough to assume my way must be the best way. Have you ever considered that the submitter might know full well that people think the way you do and simply disagree? Or not care? I wouldn't submit articles if people like you were going to mouth off every time they didn't agree with how I did it. If you're concerned about the integrity of the site, chew on that one for a while.

For the record, reply if you wish, but I have nothing further to say on the matter. I have wasted quite enough of my time on this thread already.

I'm Sorry

[JohnDenver]

In retrospect, I realize I'm just being stubborn. We both want to preserve Slashdot as a respectable discussion forum, and I must concede that taking aim at submitters is not an efficient or productive way at raising the bar for discussion, rather we should raise the bar in the discussion forum. Lastly, I finally understand your point that readers shouldn't be distracted by pointless pot shots at the submitters as it only debases the reputation of Slashdotters.

Having said that, I'm going to take a step in that direction by writing up a petition to bring back Jon Katz. This time, I will refrain from personal attacks like calling him a hyper-dramatic douche bag and will only respond to his inane submissions with serious discussion.

I will no longer respond to stupidity with stupidity, and most of all I will not hold my fellow Slashdotter's frustrations of proper discussion protocol in contempt, no matter how big of a cry baby they are with their "I don't want to have to read this! Why can't the world be perfect?!? Accommodate me! Come on guys! Stop trolling! Get serious!"

Thank you for hearing my apology.