Slashdot Mirror
FCC Rules On Pulver Free World Dialup
An anonymous reader writes " Light Reading is reporting that the verdict is in on Pulver's FWD. 'The first big decision was a victory for VoIP proponents. The commission ruled that Pulver.com's Free World Dialup VOIP service is an information service, not a telecommunications service. The decision was based largely on the analysis that it doesn't fit the 1996 Telecom Act's definition of a telecommunications service.' To me this was a no-brainer on the part of the FCC. Let's see if they get the rest right too."
Apparently it's free... but the site was down when I arrived. The main site can be confusing, but the FWD site is: http://www.fwd.pulver.com.
From Thursday.
I love VOIP. Also, having free call over the world is great. However, I just cannot understand why VOIP is not a communication medium, and why the FCC has to decide whether to impose rule on it or not. It's is another way to transfer voice right? So, it does not work like a phone, but it does what a phone does - providing a mechanism for 2 people or more talking to each other. Maybe it should not be regulated because if doing so would slow the adoption of this technolog. But to decide whether it's like a telephone or not, to be fair, I think it's just like telephone or TV, no difference.
FCC Rules On Pulver Free World Dialup
For damn long while I pondered what the hell they mean in the message. World Dialup is Pulver Free, that is Without Pulver. And what does FCC rule on this Pulver Free Word Dialup? The rest wasn't much easier either, until "Pulver.com's"...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
So I've they'd ruled against them would the headline have been "FCC Sucks On Pulver Free World Dialup"? :)
1) The big Telco's start revamping their systems so that they are giant VOIP systems.
2) Tax revenues plummet.
3) Congress says "I don't think so."
4) Tax laws are amended.
5) Tax revenues go back up (Govt. version of Profit!)
No, no ??? line in this one. It's too obvious.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Of Rewriting Rules on Delivery of the Internet and Free World Dialup Under The Gun Again and in FCC: 'Pure' VoIP not a phone service and Mr. Pulver to D.C. (David Farber's Interesting People).
Of course, this doesn't prevent congress from creating a bill that does apply to such services...
i got a free SIPphone software with my LindowsOS, you have to know someone who his also connected to the SIP network for this to work.. So its useless for me anyway..
"Pulver Free" in the "Without Pulver" sense would be represented using a hyphen: Pulver-Free.
HTH!
Source?
DSL Prime: Telco Cowboys, Mr. Pulver to D.C.
A rare victory for small business in VoIP should not obscure the fact that DSL competition is fading across America.
by Dave Burstein
DSL Prime
[February 13, 2004]
"Deliver 100 meg to almost all Americans."
-- John Cioffi. Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon, Brian Roberts of Comcast, and Bob Blau of BellSouth all recently spoke of moving to 50 and 100 Megs.
They delayed the FCC meeting this morning, but as this issue is going out Jeff Pulver should be getting miraculous news at Thursday's FCC meeting. None of us believed his Free World Dialup petition had any chance, despite the logic of moving voice to the net. "Mr. Smith"--actually, Mr. Pulver, a small businessman--went to D.C. and convinced officials his cause was right. The phone companies realized they can still game the system and stay ahead, and even the FBI offered to compromise on ruling the internet.
Friday is also the day for bids on AT&T Wireless, a deal that will probably go down because $300 million in commissions and accelerated options are at stake. Amazing that bids are at $30 billion for an outfit whose profits are negligible and headed negative, and whose management wants to cash out. Buying AWE is essentially a bet spectrum will go up dramatically in price despite the return of the analog TV band, SDR, and the FCC's plan to make more available. It's time for John Wayne CEOs to ride into the sunset.
Meanwhile, our technology produces everyday miracles. Jef Raskin writes "just gave a talk in Graz, Austria, via iChat AV. Real time voice and video, both ways. We set up the session by discussing it (at no extra cost above my standard DSL line) via audio, video, and text (all simultaneous)." His California Pac Bell connection may soon go to 3 Mbps+ down, 600 Kbps up, making that even easier. Everyone who cares about the user experience should read Jef's The Humane Interface.
Last week, yet another CEO told me how important the interface is, then showed me something second rate. Imagine if the designer of the Macintosh defined your user experience. Companies like Verizon, (whose install is thankless) or gateway/set top vendors should get it right by bringing in Jef, a friend, or similar talent.
Martin on Competition "Time now to speak"
"I'm proud to have stood up for what I believe was right"
"I'm afraid we may be losing some of the battles" to preserve the competition that currently exists. "Policy-makers in Washington are not debating the benefits of the services you offer," he said. "They are too frequently debating how much of the rules should be eliminated, and how should the changes be made to be more fair to the incumbents."
"If you have a message to deliver, I think the time is now . . . . Speak now or forever hold your peace. You must now be your own champions." (From Telecommunications Reports)
Editor's opinion: The right choice is either strong competition or strong regulation. If we don't want direct regulation of telcos' rates and profits, then we need regulation that creates thriving alternatives. Incumbents' economies of scale and financial power allow them to crush others unless curbed. As far as I'm concerned, calls for policies that cripple competitors are also a call for strong government intervention to keep prices down. One day, I'll report a Tauke or a Whitacre call for limiting CLEC access using the headline "Verizon/SBC calls for return to strict rate of return regulation"--the alternative implied if they kill the opposition.
Telco Cowboys
Repairmen to John Wayne CEOs
Ed Whitacre wants to spend $30 billion on AT&T Wireless, building an empire deserving of Ozymandias. He's blind to the AT&T folk desperately looking for an exit, as profit heads towards zero and beneath. Decimated Ameritech has lost $30 billion or more in value, and would have required a career-ending write-off except for an accounting l
Kphone is one (only?) linux client. I signed up, got a FWD number, and now no clue what to do next.
;)
I ran Kphone, and it says it needs Full name, User Part of SIP URL: and Host Part of SIP URL:
I assume full name is the name I signed up with. But wtf are User/host part of SIP URL?
BTW, SIP is never explained. No where should someone use an acronym without first explaining it.
So someone beat with me a clue stick and tell me what to do next and I"ll give you a call
It was Wednesday.
And North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria Pakistan and their ilk. A "Free World" dialup.
Ok, replying to myself
1 0/thr ead01300-0.html
On this page it told me what to do:
http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2003-
If you are behind a NAT/Firewall, the configuration
should look as follows:
Full Name: 19489
User Part of SIP URL: 19489
Host Part of SIP URL: fwd.pulver.com
Outbound Proxy (Optional): fwdnat.pulver.com:5082
Authentication Name: 19489
If you access the Internet directly, donot use
outbound proxy.
Here, replace 19489 with your account. You can apply
for a FWD account from www.fwd.pulver.com.
Well, none of that was obvious to me, but maybe I've smoked too much wacky in my time.
First off, ugly old version of qt app. Is there another app for this in linux?
Second, tried all the audio settings, and it sounds pretty bad. Definately am radio quality and a little choppy. I'm on a dsl connection and a very clean connection. I get no/minimal packet loss in other realtime apps (streaming music, online gaming) I just tried phoning their 411 and 612 for time just to hear the quality so I didn't actually speak to someone so I"m not sure how bad the lag is in talking to someone in realtime, but just on judging this audio quality of what I'm hearing I don't have my hopes too high.
Are there other codecs available to install to make it sound better? Or maybe a different SIP host to smooth out things? I've always thought voip could be cool but everytime I try it I"m disappointed. I've never tried but heard that skype one made by kazaa is amazing quality for windows only though. Not sure if that's actually true, but if it is, what are they doing different that some of these other apps?
Looking back, this has been one of the best weeks in my life, at least from the perspective of my life experiences in business.
During the FCC February 2004 Meeting, while agenda item #4, the FWD Petition was being granted, I gave up counting how many times the name "Pulver" was mentioned in the proceeding.
After thinking about this, I believe we witnessed the transition where my name became an object noun which will be associated with the petition that I filed on behalf of Free World Dialup on February 5, 2003.
In a world without heroes, we need more men like you. Keep fighting the good fight.
is there an option for Linux?
I went all through the site and can not find any mention of Linux. Anyone know what the work around is on this??
/infocom aeternam est
This ruling was awaited, but it is the easiest in the long VoIP cases yet to be judged. FWD is just a signaling/directory service, from what I understand.
Now consider Vonage which sells phone service on top of broadband, yet is not registered as a telephone service provider. Or AT&T who claims that its VoIP phone-to-phone services are not subject to the same regulation than other phone-to-phone services.
The key issue yet remaining to be assessed is the question of access charges. These are the cost billed by a local carrier to a long distance carrier, which is much higher than the cost of the very same local leg leased to, say, an individual or a business.
AT&T, preceded in this regard by many other smaller long-distance carriers are using local business lines to deliver regular phone-to-phone calls on the local market, in order to go around access charges. AT&T claims that because it uses the Internet to carry the calls, they are VoIP and should be free of access charge. Obviously local carriers don't really see it this way...
My guess is that the FCC wanted to look pro-Internet in this big VoIP debate, so it is ruling now on FWD before they have an opportunity to look at the Vonage ("PC/phone") and AT&T ("phone/phone") cases. These two are much trickier to regulate and their implications, whatever the outcome may be, will be far-reaching.
It looks like FCC is leaning toward saying VOIP will not be taxed. That is pretty neat, look at your monthly phone bill and see how much we're paying in taxes. Insane.
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
Not that I like the large telcos or excessive regulations, but there are many good social services that regular telephone companies are legally required to provide at their expense that these new VoIP companies will not have to provide:
- Free access and services for the disabled, e.g. speech to text translators for the deaf/mute and hearing/speech impaired as well as mute people. (You call a 1-800 number and a person types what you say into a TTY and tells you what the other person wrote and vice-versa)
- Cheaper rates for the poor
- 911 location service - e.g. you have a stroke at your home and call 911 and can't speak, they can still locate you
and there are quite a few more.
best regards,
Florian
Does this mean that telemarketing calls to VoIP phones are legal? Uh oh.
What's a totally free, very simple to set up and use VOIP software? Answer: Skype. This is made by the same folks that gave us Kazaa, only this software is designed for free Internet phone calls--not file sharing. Check out a review at http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/downloadoftheda y/story/0,24330,3545284,00.html
You can download this software at:
http://www.skype.com/
http://www.lipz4.com/lipz4.htm
The LIPZ4 is a SIP soft phone that runs on Linux. Very professionally done.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
I have a biiig question, does anyone knowo f any good sip phones besides kphone?
stuff that doesnt rely on kde or anything besides GTK?
Yup, you're right, looks like a furry to me.
Fucking furry fags...
I still remember a columnist (with Ziff-Davis, I think) who was considered an ISP by the DOJ. They called him up and wanted him to give them records of who he talked to (some virus author or cracker, IIRC,) since that was his supposed obligation under the law. He told them to go outside and play hide and go f-- uh... f-- um... fetch the subpoena! Yeah.
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Another testament to the ignorance of Slashdot's modders.
That would last roughly as long as it would take to file a nice class action lawsuit and an injunction.
Help us build a better map!
Come on people. They're POOR, but you expect them to have
- a phoneline (which MY phone costs are already higher so as to help pay for this)
- a computer
- internet access
and NOW you want me so pay extra (ie extra AGAIN) so that they can use The Internet for phone calls instead of using the land-line I've already paid extra for them to have?I can accept the argument that "the internet" is rapidly becoming such a pervasive part of modern western society that lack of accessibility to "the poor" and "the less-abled" is an unfortunate situation we should all work to minimize. But to argue that we as a community should also fork out our own hard-earned cash so that other people can have access to premium/luxury services is nothing more than rampant bleeding-heart stupidity.
Let me say it again, clearly, for those of you who're thick-as-a-brick
- telephone service is near-enough to a basic necessity that I don't care to whine
- Internet is getting there (and at least could be argued as such)
- Voice Over IP services are a luxury
Or let me say this another way - if we (the not-poor or otherwise disadvantaged) are going to pay extra so that Jimmy-Welfare can have affordable (phone+computer+internet+) VoIP, then I'd expect Billy G and suchlike people have all contributed part of their income so that I can be driven to work in a Stretch Limo.ie they're cool and leet but they provide essentially nothing (certainly nothing that's absolutely essential) that Ye-Olde-Tele-o-Phone doesn't provide
Turn your brain on before you post next time.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Consider "the telecommunications infrastructure" (ie legacy wires-in-the-ground telcos)
- wires-in-the-ground gives them a monopoly so you need to regulate them sharing the wires with other service providers
- wires-in-the-ground means it's CHEAP to wire high-density populations so you need to legislate that they must ALSO provide services to LOW density polulations (eg rural communities)
These issues do NOT (sanely) apply to VoIP services (or to ANYTHING which is purely a "service" as opposed to an "infrastructure") so there's NO NEED to regulate/legislate these issues.And also, VoIP is layered over InternetService which is layered over "TelecommunicationsService" (using the sense described initially). So if the "telecommunications service" attracts fees (eg billed as a % of costs) then applying the same fees to "internet service" amounts to double dipping and applying them again to "VoIP Service" amounts to tripple dipping.
How far do you think this would go before any additional service layers are technically do-able but the government fees would amount to a bazillion times more than the base cost of the service itself?
And we can also go into the fact that Telecommunications Services are considered a basic need in modern western society, so part of the regulated fees go towards providing cheaper service to the less wealthy members of society.
Internet Access is not (yet) a basic requirement and VoIP is still (and most likely will be for many many many many years to come) PURELY a luxury (after all, ALL it does is duplicate "basic phone service").
So again we see that (some) regulations which apply to "legacy telecommunications" make less than zero sense when applied to VoIP
- because it's a SERVICE and not an INFRASTRUCTURE
- because it's a LUXURY and not a BASIC NEED
I'm sure you now understand why the current telecomms regs do not apply as-is-and-wholus-bolus to VoIP and why therefore either amendments to the current regs or entirely new regs need to be drawn up for VoIPservices and service providers.Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
But how does this ruling affect the services' possible status as "common carriers"?
I seem to recall that the phone companies aren't liable for the content of the conversations they carry because they enjoy common carrier status. So, the phone company can't be sued/shut down if someone is plotting a "crime" over their phone lines. But are these internet services similarly protected, or are they vulnerable to effective censorship if they don't attempt to self-censor the content they carry?
Maricales never cease.
I guess the shrub forgot to stack the FCC with goons while he was busy getting patriot and patriot II enacted.
I say that it's a good thing that we had a jew on the vice-presidental ticket of the loosing team 3+ years ago.
Does this mean that companies inside the US will now be able to call me at home using VOIP and skirt the DNC list? Does this also mean that it's now cheap and easy for companies outside the US to call me at home using VOIP, and the FCC can't touch them?
You agree that sibsidizing poor people's phone lines is a tolerable subsidy, then bitch about voip tarrifs.
They're the same thing! If you're not paying the surcharge for a phone line because you exclusively use voip, you're hampering the subsidy.
So, what you end up believing is that poor people should get a bit of help affording their phones, but rich metropolitan technotypes with broadband and voip should be able to dodge their share of the tax.
Sounds to me like you're the one that's thick as a brick...