Slashdot Mirror
VoIP Receives Warm Reception From UK Regulators
"In stark contrast to the U.S., where VoIP providers may be stifled by wiretap costs, the UK telecoms regulators seem to be welcoming the technology. The BBC is reporting that a block of phone numbers have been assigned to VoIP users -- and that Ofcom, the regulators, have said 'Our first task as regulator is to keep out of the way.'
Which include - What does the future hold? and Have we forgotton about anything?
One thing I'd say they don't discuss is vunerbility to things like DDOS attacks... they also don't comment on phone tapping (Though that's covered in other legislation it would be good to have included the relavant pointer here)
UK Laptops
In the UK we don't have control over the laws on this sort of thing anymore, we are just waiting for European guidence to be issued which we will then have to follow if it's in our interests or not. This is just intermediatry guidence while we wait for the European machine to come up with something - though perhaps it does put us in a good position to shape what that something is.
UK Laptops
You do realise this is a post about the UK don't you. Most countries don't have the long distance / local provider thing you Americans do. I mean there are cheap calling cards, but those are a little different.
BT then said, "Oh no, thats still a massive cash cow, and we thoroughly intend to continue to drag our feet over it."
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
This page gives a graphical indication of where MP's stand based on their voting record in the current parliament.
Blunkett is a long way out from the vast majority of the Labour party.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
BT faces fines over local loop unbundling
This is basically wrong - I will try and explain, or at least give some examples...
"...In VoIP, the burden is already being paid for by the backbone ISPs who provide overseas network connections over their fat pipes."
Wrong - you pay for the network which you are running VoIP on. No Telco or ISP pays for you, because if they did they would be out of business.
The real difference between VoIP and POTS is the charging model:
> POTS is distance based
> VoIP is not distance based (VoIP is a free service, supported by an underlying packet switching network which is not distance charged).
This difference is the core of the paradigm shift that is taking place.
"A general rise in prices charged to ISPs will find their way down to the end subscriber and all those pennies saved using VoIP vanish in a puff of logic"
Rubbish - for loads of reasons, including...
Telcos are regulated, and exist in a competitive market - they cannot just hike the price of bandwidth to cover the loss in POTS revenue.
A large cost of POTS is having to individually price each call a customer makes, then invoice them, collect the money, provide call centres, provision switches ...etc.
Broadband (which is driving VoIP) is a significantly simpler model, for example one fixed recurrent charge every month (and no complex infrastructure).
What is far more likely to happen is that the Telcos will either change voluntarily, or be brought out and forced to change, or go bust, be brought up at a yard sale, and change.
"Add to this that once consumer groups figure out that the burden of *your* high VoIP usage is borne by *all* subscribers, they will start demanding tiered service and your delightfully cheap long distance calls will suddenly be just as expensive as they were on the old POTS program"
This doesnt actually make any sense - A consumer group that lobbies for higher prices for everyone?
VoIP, at the most simple level, is not even detectable by the telco. They supply a broadband connection to you. What you do with it is up to you. Take a long hard look at Skype and their business model (www.Skype.com).
Also - what does it matter for you how much I am using VoIP, if you are paying a fixed monthly fee for your broadband?
I shall stop going on about this as I should be working. Here are some interesting articles which might help...
"Rise of the stupid network" by David Isenberg
http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html
"Customer-owned Networks" by Clay Shirky
http://shirky.com/writings/zapmail.html
Oh come one, the US federal government has been bending over backwards to avoid taxes on VOIP. I hardly consider the contrast between the UK and the US to be "stark."
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Grandparent: Most countries don't have the long distance / local provider thing you Americans do.
Parent: What, you just have one monopolistic corporation that controls both local and long distance calling? Sounds like AT&T before 1984.
The bigger difference in charging in the UK compared to the US is that we don't have the cross-subsidisation of "free local calls".
Given the smallness of the island, most but not all UK providers have reduced their long distance call rates to the same level as their local calls. Many packages offer free national calls. An important source of revenue these days is calls to mobile phones, which are charged at a much steeper rate. (The UK operates a strict calling party pays approach).
BT customers do have the option to go to other providers either for all their services. Many do. Others offer calling cards for international calls, calls to mobiles and local calls.
I regularly phone Austin, TX from England.
I pay 2 pence per minute (that's about 3.5 cents).
www.telediscount.co.uk
999 isn't going away. There's no good reason to stop it from working, even if 112 becomes the "official" number. Hell, 911 even works here, due to the number of times people dial it instead of 999.