VoIP Gets A Big Backer And Another Lawsuit

Ungrounded Lightning writes "Time Warner Cable has announced plans to roll out a VoIP telephone service. I see two implications. First: ISPs providing VoIP phone service have a competitive advantage over third-party VoIP/PSTN providers (such as Vonage), who must ride on top of a separate broadband subscription for the packet transport. This could lead to consolidation of this industry segment in the hands of ISPs. Second: Cable ISPs have an advantage over Telco DSL operations - where a VoIP offering would cannibalize their own POTS and short-range long-distance revenue. This implies rollout on cable providers first, followed by harder times for telcos, long-distance companies, and third parties." chipperdog writes "In this article it is mentioned that the small rural phone companies in North Dakota are filing a complaint against a local VoIP provider, CallSmart. Interesting to see how this one works out, given what happened in Minnesota a few months ago."

Comments

mixed bag

[pbrinich]

I agree that Time Warner (and other, especially cable based ISPs) will have a huge competative advantage over third-party providers. But, in my area TWC is going to be offering VOIP in early next year, but they want to charge 39.95/mo for service that I can get for 25 bucks from vonage and they won't even be offering voice mail initially!

I think government and telcos need to realized that VOIP can and shouldn't be regulated anymore than any internet-based service. Governments need to find other revenue streams than regulatory fees....just my $.02

Re:mixed bag

[GreyPoopon]

But, in my area TWC is going to be offering VOIP in early next year, but they want to charge 39.95/mo for service that I can get for 25 bucks from vonage and they won't even be offering voice mail initially!

Interestingly enough, my provider is offering VoIP in a PARTNERSHIP with Vonage for $25/month (500 LD minutes) or $35/month unlimited. Personally, I think this is the way ALL providers should do it -- partner with a third party company.

Maybe I'm stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't "short-range long-distance revenue" an oxymoron?

Brilliant!

[Phrack]

Second: Cable ISPs have an advantage over Telco DSL operations - where a VoIP offering would cannibalize their own POTS and short-range long-distance revenue.

So when your cable service is interrupted, you can't call 'em to tell 'em you lost your TV signal! Think of the money they'll save on customer no-service!

Re:WRONG

[line.at.infinity]

raisinets wrote:

I work for the AT&T telco division....

You were working for Apple 2 hours ago, for Honda 2 days ago. That's quite an amazing feat.

POTS won't die for a while...

[pdaoust007]

As exited as I am to see Internet services such as VoIP become mainstream, part of me still thinks that POTS will still be here for a while.

A couple of things to consider:

- You need broadband and not everybody has it, can get or will ever want it
- Cable and DSL (especially cable according ot my own experience) are definitely not as stable as POTS. They are next to useless when power is out unless you AND you proveider have UPS
- Emergency services are still an issue with VoIP. I'm expecting the first headline about someone dying because 911 wasn't available on VoIP anytime now.
- There is still no end to end QoS on VoIP. Home gateways are still too dumb to prioritize VoIP trafficover your Pr0n traffic.

Cable companies != common carrier. Beware.

[clustercrasher]

It is a little known fact that cable companies were ruled as not common carriers. That means that customers have very little protection from lack of service, privacy issues... Once we allow them to provide phone service without those protections we will erode those rights even further. $20/month for a phone line is a good deal. Do you think that will last if the phone companies are driven under?