Slashdot Mirror
Rewriting Rules on Delivery of the Internet
mathin writes "A recent NYTimes (free reg required) article states that, 'The Federal Communications Commission began writing new rules today that officials and industry experts said would profoundly alter both the way the Internet is delivered and used in homes and businesses.' Things under consideration: broad band over electrical wires and VoIP. A little thin on details, but interesting none the less."
We always hear about delivering broadband over powerlines, and while it seems to be possible I thought the problem with wide scale adoption is the transformers that regulate the voltage delivered to your house. Personally I think wireless will be a much better solution. Just stick the access points in the existing cell phone towers, or is that too logical?
When I took my first networking class, they told us it was important the WE knew the difference, but that the general masses didn't make the distinction and that trying to correct the error of their ways was futile.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Sorry, when people use a wrong definition too much, then the wrong definition gets associated with the word in the dictionaries and then becomes an acceptable definition.
Bitrate and bandwidth have unfortunately become interchangable terms in common culture, even though us geeks know that there's a subtile difference.
If you do VoIP around your own house, you're using a PBX which the FCC doesn't care about.
If you're doing person-to-person and computer-to-computer VoIP with people you've already met some other way to avoid phone calls, you're okay.
If you're doing VoIP that's connecting to the PTSN somehow in place of the "last mile", the FCC wants to have a talk with you.
I can't tell, but when I read just the headline at NYT.com
"F.C.C. Begins Rewriting Rules on Delivery of the Internet"
my gut reaction was "Oh, crap, this is going to be bad."
How many others had a similar thought?
It is a bit depressing that Mike Powell's FCC engenders that kind of response.
the future is here, it is just not evenly distributed - w. gibson
Remember to tell that to the guy holding the radio the next time a disaster comes through your town. He's probably a ham, donating his time, energy and knowledge to helping others by providing communications when every other system is down.
Be sure to tell him you don't need his help. Get cozy on the roof during that flood, cause you might just be there a while.
FCC rules that "Pure VoIP that NEVER connects to the PSTN is not subject to 'the telecommunications regulations'. "
One interesting implication of this ruling is that suddenly there's a significant benefit to VoIP providers to directly and transparently interconnect/interoperate their services.
Instead of
- Is it on My Network?
- Else dump it to the PSTN
style services, we could now see VoIP evolving to operate more like- Is it on My Network?
- Is it on the network of any of the VoIP services I 'peer' directly with?
- Else dump it to the PSTN
The industry already has (mostly?) functional standardised interfaces and interoperation between VoIP and PSTN, this ruling will strongly encourage true interoperability amongst VoIP providers, and transparent interoperability generally leads to competition on the basis of quality and services rather than purely on technology and customer-lock-ins.Now they just need to require that where the VoIP service interfaces with the PSTN they must fully support E911 and phone-number-mobility (ie like cell providers have recently been required) then you'd have a very fair and competitive environment encouraging strong growth in the both the Internet Service and Telecommunications industries.
I mean seriously! In what way is a VoIP call that connects to a PSTN/legacy telecoms phone different to one from a Mobile Phone to a PSTN number? The only real diference is the medium of transmission (irrespective of the direction-of-calling, even).
The "telecommunications regulations" really apply to the infrastructure. Many of the regulations specifically relate to "how can we ensure the infrastructure reaches ALL parts of the community in a fair and reasonable manner". If you *never* use that infrastructure, then many those regulations just plain make no sense, would imply double-billing (or even triple-billing) of fees or would be unreasonably burdensome.
For example - VoIP over an ADSL customer.
- telecoms fees apply to the physical line for the local phone company
- internet service fees aply to the ADSL/Internet connection via the ISP
- VoIP - so should the telecoms fees apply again?
Now if that VoIP call connected across to the PSTN, then fees apply (ie at the point of connecting to the PSTN, telecoms fees apply to the connecting line - like always; any per-call telecoms fees would also apply, naturally).Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Remember to tell that to the guy holding the radio the next time a disaster comes through your town.
/. stories on this
topic pointed out that the receiving end
might still have power. Sorry, but no, that
doesn't cut it... Unless we have a disaster on
a scale of hundreds of miles in diameter, no
one will go running off to find a ham to get
help, they'd just use their cell phone, or
failing that, drive to the next town. And,
assuming help exists, a disaster of that scale
would send FEMA scurrying anyway, so no need to
bother making contact.
Yeah, sounds nice in theory.
And what disaster, of a scale requiring us to go back to antiquated ham radio for communication, would also fail to knock out power, thus removing the source of potential interference?
Some people in previous
"Gee, Steve, LA just dissapeared from the power grid, all major broadcasting from the area has stopped, and NOAA visible shows no sources of light... Do you think we should check it out?"
"Nah... No hams, those true gods among men, have radioed for help. The entire city probably just decided to go to bed early, all at once."
Some people in previous /. stories on this topic pointed out that the receiving end might still have power. Sorry, but no, that doesn't cut it... Unless we have a disaster on a scale of hundreds of miles in diameter, no one will go running off to find a ham to get help, they'd just use their cell phone, or failing that, drive to the next town. And, assuming help exists, a disaster of that scale would send FEMA scurrying anyway, so no need to bother making contact.
Most of the traffic carried on Amateur Radio after a disaster is simple "I'm OK" messages to families outside of the area. While these messages may seem insignificant to you, they mean a lot to the people receiving them. Ham Radio may not save the world, but it still serves a purpose and always will.
Cellular networks fall on their ass these days during a disaster as they depend heavily on telco landline facilties. People have gotten a false sense of security. Network reliablity and survivablity has gone out the window with cellular networks, in favor of shiny phones and stupid features.
And by the way, FEMA uses HF frequencies as well. They could potentially experience interference just like Amateur Radio. Do some research.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Destroying a large portion of wireless spectrum is not justifiable because it benefits more people. There are many examples of this in society where reallocation of a resource would benefit more people, but it would be detrimental long term to the people and the resource itself. Right now, amateur frequency allocations belong to the people internationally. You can enjoy them by simply passing a test and getting licensed. Once they are given to a business interest, they cease to be yours and you can only use them as a customer of that business. BPL impacts other groups including government, military, shortwave, aviation, maritime communications, and CBers, so this would have national security and international implications as well. BPL has been linked in some rhetoric with increasing "homeland security". BPL in fact takes spectrum away from government agencies directly tasked with protecting the country. So in summary, allowing BPL will ultimately benefit a few utility companies, not the people.
Users of the affected spectrum cannot be relocated, or at least not economically or in a timely manner, so this is not an option either. It would be cheaper for the government to subsidize cable and DSL deployment. Plus, all of the services that use HF bands require the characteristics that only HF bands exhibit. There would also be huge international treaty implications with any relocation. Changes in international communications treaties are measured in decades, not months or even years. Relocating government and military services alone would take years as the FCC would have to structure a migration plan. Chances are it would be ten years before this could be completed and it's likely that power companies will have run fiber to the home or DSL and cable will finally be ubiquitous. Perhaps the largest issue to tackle, though, is where to move these services in what is an already overcrowded spectrum.
If it was determined that relocation was the way to go, this would be very irresponsible as HF radio bands are a unique natural resource. No other radio spectrum can provide worldwide communications without any supporting infrastructure (i.e. satellites).
The FCC has indeed "followed the money" with this NPRM, that's for sure. They ignored computer models, field measurements, and around 5000 comments filed against BPL, and took the claims of one BPL equipment vendor, hook, line and sinker.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .