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."

33 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. If you want to join... by ArbiterOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From Thursday.

    1. Re:Dupe by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, it's not a dupe. Let me quote from the story you link:

      "The FCC will be holding an Open Commission Meeting [PDF] Thursday. Number one on the agenda is a 'Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Pulver.com's Free World Dialup is neither Telecommunications nor a Telecommunications Service.'"

      Notice the future tense. The FCC hadn't ruled yet. They were going to make a decision. This story is abut the decision they made. Whether the ruling was a foregone conclusion is debatable, but that doesn't make it a dupe. Get a clue.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  3. Why VOIP is not a communication thing by moduc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing by oldave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Telephone companies have been regulated because they have traditionally been monopolies.

      The main reason is that it simply makes no sense financially for another company to hang wires to the same houses.

      VOIP doesn't have the same financial implications, and will introduce competition, particularly in the long distance markets.

      Television (broadcast - cable and satellite are different animals), on the other hand, uses a finite resource - electromagnetic spectrum. Channel assignments are regulated, which makes sense. I've never been comfortable with content regulation, but that's a discussion for other threads.

    2. Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I think it's just like telephone or TV, no difference."

      The difference being it's a directory service, and doesn't handle VoIP

    3. Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing by mikewas · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the traditional voice circuits are carried over copper or glass, no electromagnetic spectrum required there. Satelite & RF links are rarely used for circuit switched voice anymore, the quality of service over copper wire or glass fiber is better & the high capacity makes costs low. Does that mean my landline phone is not a communications thing? VoIP is also most certainly a commnication thing, but part of the FCC's charter is to encourage communications technology for the common good. There are financial implications, and they are intentionally "unfair". What we have now, at least in the US, is a very uneven playing field. There are different catagories of companies that provide phone service (they are vying for the same consumer dollars) but are treated differently:

      The incumbent landline company is still regulated even though they no longer have the advantage of being a monopoly.

      Non-incumbent landline companies are much less regulated.

      Mobile providers are taxed at a lower rate and are required to supply fewer emergency services (though this is changing).

      VoIP is almost completely unregulated and untaxed. Provides almost no emergency services other than passing the user to the PSTN network.

      VoIP suppliers, and to a lesser extent the non-incumbent landline providers & the mobile service providors, are riding on the coattails of the incumbent landline service providors. They get cheap facilities & services, are held to a lower requirements of service, and are taxed at a lower rate.

      The incumbent is required to lease facilities to competitors at a rate based on the cost of those facilities. Then, when the incumbent needs additional facilities (because it was required to give them to its competitors) they must build new facilities at a higher cost. This puts them at a huge competitive disadvantage, eventhough there are charges applied to other providors that are funnelled to the incumbent (to offset the cost of providing service to everyone, emergency services, inexpensive/free service to schools, libraries & the poor, a higher quality of service. So there are huge financial implications and they are arificially skewed.

      There is reason to favor the new technology, or at least there was. It makes it easier for new services & technologies to develop. However, in my opinion, it's time for VoIP to pay its own way. The technology is there, it has been around for quite some time now. It already makes tremendous sense in some areas e.g. a campus or company with excess data transmission capacity can make use of the spare bandwidth for voice. The hotel I'm in has integrated data & voice facilities, since many travellers to business hotels now require high speed network connections this scheme works well. It's even beginning to make sense to replace traditional switched circuit facilities -- I visit many Central Offices that belong to different telephone companies (wireline & wireless). Almost every CO I've been in recently has VoIP. They aren't tearing out their traditional switches but most have passed the trial stage and are using VoIP for growth now. Expect changes, VoIP will be expected to hold its own soon.

      --

      "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
    4. Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing by Charcharodon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The VOIP that the FCC ruled on is not as you portray it. Free World is simply an organization that helps hand out numbers for voip so people can conviently connect to one another only over VOIP. They offer no service what's so ever that allows you to connect to tranditional phone networks. (Though they do encourge people with VOIP/standard phone systems to let others connect through them for free.) If they did, then they would have to maintain connections to the phone network and money would have to change hands in order for this to work. Pure VOIP already pays it's own way. To talk to my parents in the midwest or my buddy who is stationed in Korea, we all have to pay for broad band, there is no free ride for the VOIP! My buddy does have a second funtion that he pays for so he can call his family in Washington to their standard phone line and they to him, making it a local call. Again not free.

      Even the hotels and businesses you mentioned still must pay for some sort of connection to the outside world for local calls (non-VOIP).

    5. Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a counter argument for you

      In that case, how is VoIP different from recording a message and ataching it in an email? The series of messages sent mack and forth constitute "two or more people talking to each other" so FCC should regulate email.with exactly the same fees and requirements as landlines (because *that's* actually what's at question here)

      Oh and ditto for file-sharing networks because people could be sending back-and-forth MP3s of snippets of conversation. And also Instant Messaging.

      Or even (gasp) The Internet! Every TCP session is a "communication" between two parties - so we need FCC fees and regulations aplying to every single TCP session we create. Obviously we need E911 services (one of the regs which would apply) available for every-single-IP address (ie we need to know EXACTLY where you are physically when you're on the internet at all times)

      Now do you see how simple-minded your thinking is?

      You made the classic mistake of boiling down the definition of "telecommunications" to its most basic brain-dead terms, and then applied that brain-dead definition to an advanced service. Of course you completely forgot that (mathematically speaking) to balance an equation you need to do the same operation to both sides - which would mean applying brain-dead regulations to VoIP (as you have so clearly suggested)

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    6. Re:Why VOIP is not a communication thing by real+gumby · · Score: 2, Informative
      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?
      If you read the FCC decision you'll see this is how they approached the problem (although the 5 commissioners did not all agree as to the conclusion).

      They decided that Pulver's service (which basically just helps two VOIP endpoints locate each other) is just an internet service, and is not a "telecommunications service." They didn't pick up the question as to whether VOIP/POTS services (like Vonage) are telecommunications services in the sense that the FCC and the states regulate.

  4. Damned English! by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  5. Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I've they'd ruled against them would the headline have been "FCC Sucks On Pulver Free World Dialup"? :)

  6. This won't last. by bryanp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:This won't last. by Roofus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oooh! I can play! This time I'll be the Cable Operators.

      1) Cable COs see that VOIP competition is eating away at a new market they want to be a major player in.

      2) Said Cable COs roll out DOCSIS 2.0 wih Quality of Service (QoS) provisions.

      3) Cable COs give their VOIP packets highest priority, and everybody else low priority.

      4) Customer calls to complain that their 3rd party VOIP is choppy. Customer service says "We can switch you over to our jitter-free service for only $5 more per month!"

      5) VOIP competition dies.

  7. Of course... by mgcsinc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, this doesn't prevent congress from creating a bill that does apply to such services...

    1. Re:Of course... by Aldric · · Score: 2, Funny
      *looks into crystal ball*

      Loss of profit blah blah blah. Campaign contribution... *brown paper envelope rustle*. Laws change.

  8. SIPphone by Swe3tDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..

    1. Re:SIPphone by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, this is exactly what Free World Dialup is all about. You get a number assigned to you by Pulver, and that's associated with your SIP connection information. You can then sign up with one of several VoIP-to-PTSN connection companies, and suddenly you have a 10-digit dialable number that leads to your SIP software.

      Of course, you'll have to pay for the VoIP-to-PTSN connect, and that's the service the FCC will regulate, Pulver's number assignment process however is not something that the FCC is going to complain about.

    2. Re:SIPphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, you have to join the SIP network, but there are ways to stage dial into the POTS network too.

      The freebie software phone apps, while they do work reasonably well, require a sound card, speakers, mike, or a headset/mic....and some tuning. This seems to turn a lot of people off to the whole thing after fiddling with it for a while.

      Or you can throw down as little as $65 for a real IP phone and just plug it in. That's not a lot of money, and well worth it IMHO, since you don't need to leave a PC running, it just seems more natural, and it just works.

  9. another perspective by r5t8i6y3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  10. Sounds cool, just installed Kphone now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 ;)

    1. Re:Sounds cool, just installed Kphone now what? by tjansen · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. Note that kphone is more a research project that end-user friendly software. It became much better in the last year though.
      2. The user part is your number, e.g. "17556" (my number). The host part is "fwd.pulver.com". The outbound proxy is "fwdnat.pulver.com:5082" and the authentication username is "17556". If you are on a NAT, you should go to 'SIP Preferences'/'Socket' and set 'Stun server' to yes.
      3. SIP stands for Session Initiation Protocol.

  11. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was Wednesday.

  12. What now? I'll tell you what now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, replying to myself

    On this page it told me what to do:
    http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2003-1 0/thr ead01300-0.html

    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?

  13. The Day I became an Object Noun by jeffpulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. A little bit of background here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  15. JUST SAY NO TO TAXES by firstadopter.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Ok, now I'm interested, but, by jeffpulver · · Score: 3, Informative

    go to: http://pulver.com/fwd/downloads

    there is a port for Kphone for Linux

  17. There is a negative side too by fpn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:There is a negative side too by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      [...] 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:

      Except for maybe the 911 locator, those are good things not to be forced to provide. It's just plain wrong for me to have to pay extra on my line so that someone meeting an arbitrary set of conditions gets either 1) cheaper service or 2) extra services. If you can't pay for a luxury service (and telephone is a luxury, regardless of what anyone tells you), then don't get it. If you want to use extra services, like text relaying, expect to pay for them.

      From another perspective, if the company that you personally started, built up, and ran received a government mandate to start providing free stuff to certain customers, how would you feel?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  18. Heh.... by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  19. Re:There is a negative side too (Reality Check!) by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Interesting
    - Cheaper rates for the poor

    Come on people. They're POOR, but you expect them to have
    1. a phoneline (which MY phone costs are already higher so as to help pay for this)
    2. a computer
    3. 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
    1. telephone service is near-enough to a basic necessity that I don't care to whine
    2. Internet is getting there (and at least could be argued as such)
    3. Voice Over IP services are a luxury
      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
    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.

    Turn your brain on before you post next time.
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.