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.'

Comments

REVIEW: Mandrake Linux

[Slashbot Hive-Mind]

I would like to share my 2 cent concerning my experience in Linux mandrake recently.

The Linux operating system was born in 1991 and was created by one
man, a Finnish student named Linus Torvalds. Since
these humble beginnings, a multi-million dollar industry has sprung up
to exploit the commercial potential of Linux, but until recently Linux
has eluded mainstream acceptance. However, due to the recent economic
downturn together with uncertainty over changes to Microsoft's pricing
policy, Linux is now being touted as a serious contender to Microsoft
Windows.

While there are many other alternatives to Windows, including
BSD which is based on SUN's (Stanford University Network)
server-grade Solaris operating system, none have commanded the
same level of media attention as Linux. Linux Mandrake is just the
latest in a long line of quirkily christened versions of Linux.
Previous versions of Linux have been named Red Hat, Slack Ware, Storm
and Coral. In stark contrast to the mundane names such as 98, ME or NT
preferred by Microsoft, the crazy names of each Linux release hint
at its zany nature.

My foray into the world of Linux began by downloading a "CD image"
from the Mandrake-Linux web site. But don't worry,

this isn't software piracy, it's perfectly legal! Linux is shareware,
meaning that it can be freely redistributed without fear of a visit by
the Business Software Alliance. The free availability of Linux is a
major reason for its popularity among cash-strapped students and
self-styled anti-capitalist hackers.

Before installing new software, it is always advisable to read the
documentation. Unfortunately, an unpleasant surprise was in store for
me in the "required configuration" section of the hocked to learn that
Linux Mandrake only runs on Pentium processors, meaning that my hopes
of testing the water with my old Gateway 486 were dashed. Furthermore,
a whopping 32 megabytes of memory are required to run Linux! Although
the advocates of Linux self-righteously boast the efficiency of their
chosen operating system and deride the
"bloatware" produced by Microsoft, it appears that their claims are
blatantly incorrect.

Although my humble 486 will happily run Windows 95, it seems that
Linux requires far more powerful, and more expensive, computer
hardware. Is this really the sign of a lean, mean operating system?

Of course not.

Sadly, not even being able to install Linux is just the first of my
many complaints. A brief perusal of the features of Linux Mandrake
reveals that Linux is sorely lacking many crucial productivity
applications. For example, why isn't the industry standard web
browser, Internet Explorer, included with Linux? Despite the best
efforts of the experts at the Internet Engineering Task Force to
encourage adoption of the Internet Explorer standard, the creators of
Linux seem to think that they know better. By refusing to adhere to
recognised standards, Linux is simply undermining its own credibility.

Similarly, almost all of the world's most popular and widely used
software is completely incompatible with Linux! It may surprise you to
learn that your copy of Microsoft Office, Outlook Express, or Lotus
Notes will not work under Linux. Those who wish to use their computer
for recreational purposes are also out of luck, for almost all of the
most popular games are unavailable for Linux. Although a wide range of
software is freely available for Linux, these pitiful offerings are
mostly unfinished, unreliable and do not bear comparison to their
commercial counterparts.

Computer security is also an area that seems to have been overlooked
by the developers of Linux. In these times when hacking and viruses
are commonplace, it defies belief to learn that no anti-virus software
is available for Linux. To add insult to i

Re:REVIEW: Mandrake Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

*claps*

I know you didn't write this, but it's beautiful, well done to the original author.

See/Hear

[oneandoneis2]

It's interesting to note that when CCTV cameras in public places in the UK were mentioned on /. the other day, there was an immediate outcry from US people about "Invasion of privacy" and "Thank God the authorities here can't spy on me when I'm outside!"

And then when VoIP gets mentioned, it has to be pointed out that it's being stalled in the US by the authorities complaining that it'll make it harder to spy on people who are in their own homes.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. . ?

Re:See/Hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, because the United States is the land of the free. It even says so in that little song of theirs! How much more proof do you need?!

It's too early for most Americans to be up right now but I'm sure some will be along soon to tell you how wrong you are and why the US is the greatest country in the world ever.

Re:See/Hear

[pavese]

Are these VOIP experiments you're referring to? Or am I now making a stupid joke the lack of sense of humour of which is certainly not up my alley?

Re:See/Hear

[two-tail]

there was an immediate outcry from US people about "Invasion of privacy" and "Thank God the authorities here can't spy on me when I'm outside!"

Of course, many in the US are not aware that there are a large number of cameras watching where they go. However, most of the cameras are direct-to-tape or otherwise go directly to recordings. There doesn't seem to be a system that takes all of these camera networks, linking them into a single system. At least, not yet...

Re:See/Hear

[geordie_loz]

As I've said before, America are the only "Land Of The Free" - they're the only country not under the military dictatorship of America..

Re:See/Hear

[pavese]

Forgive me for the absence of my lack of humour, but isn't that what you call VOIP?

Re:See/Hear

[pavese]

:O

Re:See/Hear

[pjt33]

But next Saturday is the Last Night of the Proms and hundreds of Brits will be singing "Land of hope and glory, mother of the free" about Britain. Also "Britons never will be slaves" (from "Rule Britannia"). Who do we believe?

Re:See/Hear

[SlashdotLemming]

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. . ?

Only a partial view of the truth. The real model is simple though:

Something happens somewhere in the world. One of the two follows:

a) Immediate outcry from a large portion of /. readers. The end is near.
ex: Bill Gates farts
"Gates just shot himself in the foot. This really leaves a bad taste in my mouth" (Score:5,Insightful)
"Gates is just a copycat. He has nothing on a Stallman fart" (Score:5,Informative)
--or--
b) Fanboy circle jerk
ex:Peter Jackson releases source code for LOTR trilogy
"Jackson is one of the great humanitarians of our time" (Score:5,Insightful)
"According to this link, Lucas refuses to OS the Star Wars Trilogy. This is why Lucas will never hold a candle to Jackson" (Score:5,Informative)
"My presssccciousss" (Score:5,Funny)

Re:See/Hear

[jez9999]

How is this contradictory? Just because the US authorities like spying on people in their own homes, doesn't mean Slashdotters in general approve of that idea any more than mass CCTV.

Re:See/Hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I've never been owned by a fat white guy from Alabama, so I guess "Britons never will be slaves" is pretty accurate.

Re:See/Hear

[oneandoneis2]

How is this contradictory?

Beats me. When did I say it was contradictory?

In fact, I said it was a case of "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" - that's a way of saying "The same, but different."

i.e. When one type of surveillance is mentioned, the US /.ers smugly point out they have no problems, only the UK has to worry about it.

Shortly after, another form of surveillance is mentioned, and the UK /.ers smugly point out they have no problems, only the US has to worry about it.

So, in the end, whichever country you're living in, there are people whose only interest in technology is using it to keep an eye on you. Which makes some of the more extreme reactions that came up in the CCTV thread ("Thank God I don't live there" and "It's not a country, it's one huge jail") rather daft, as it's not a case of surveillance in one place and no surveillance in the other.

It's surveillance in one place and another type of surveillance in the other. Be watched in one place or be listened to in the other.

You pays your money and takes your choice. . .

Re:See/Hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! Of course the US is the greatest country ever! I was born in it!

Re:See/Hear

[jdiggans]

And now, my American duty:

Thank you for your attention.

Re:See/Hear

[jdiggans]

Thank you Slashdot form validator for carefully warning me that everything put between angle brackets is assumed to be HTML instead of being escaped. Christ. Here:

And now, my American duty:
<obligatory "we're number one!">
<obligatory 'saved your asses in WW II' rhetoric>
<obligatory denigration of all things French>

Thank you for your attention.

Re:See/Hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone forgot to preview?

a nice idea, but it won't last

[Slashbot Hive-Mind]

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.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confused, because this is a story about VOIP in the United Kingdom, not the US. There is no "Congress". There are no convoluted tax laws that only apply to telecoms. VOIP users will pay VAT on their service just like any other telecoms user. Total impact on tax revenues would be expected to increase slightly, not decrease.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[Anonymous Coward]

parent has a good point (despite the typical yank viewpoint of "Congress controls the world")

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[mishmash]

"The European Commission has published a paper in June 2004 on the regulation of Voice over IP services but this does not give clarity on some key legal issues. The Commission has indicated that it will give more clarification on this matter later in the year. " from ofcom

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.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[WIAKywbfatw]

This is the kind of crap that Euro-skeptics would have us all believe: that the European Union is taking all power from its member states and that the individual parliaments of countries such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, etc are all becoming toothless entities.

Please, realise that this is a troll attacking the EU. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[Anonymous Coward]

Dispite some of it's best efforts, the EU still doesn't control tax laws in the member states. You'll pay VAT on your VOIP calls just like anyone else, EU or no EU.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it's amazing the Orwellian aura the typical europhile's thoughts have. Your comment is typical of the breed, other examples include:

"We have to hand over power to the EU to gain power" - Tony Blair, just about any other politician ever.

"Handing over 100% control of our currency to the European Central Bank increases our power over our curency" - every europhile ever.

What can I say? I'd really hoped the old British lust for Empire and Imperial Control had died down, but it is still alive and well among the patrician classes of the British Establishment, who, frustrated in their desire to control a might British Empire, wish to steer us into this new Empire where they can share the gains, some new, continental, Roman Empire.

Eurosceptics, us "little people" with no desire for this imperialism, who want to see a Britain unafraid to stand up on its own two feet, face a big fight. The Europhiles have dragged us in this far by dirty tricks and avoiding democracy, well aware the british people are almost universally opposed to their plot. Luckily, we have managed to set things now such that we can't be dragged in any further without a referendum - on the currency and on the constitution, both of which the europhiles know they will lose massively and humiliatingly should they ever decide to hold them. So now we have stalemate while the europhiles try to think of non-democratic ways to drag us in further, and us eurosceptics try to think of ways to make the democratic will of the british people heard and pull us out!

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[WIAKywbfatw]

1. I'd have a lot more respect for you and your opinion if you didn't feel the need to hide behind an AC comment.

2. Made up quotes really add so much weight to your argument. No, really, they do. Why not just say that the EU demands that you hand over your first-born for summary execution? The fact that it's a lie shouldn't bother you.

3. The debate about Britain's role in the EU and how it will affect the everyday lives of Britons, today and tomorrow, is so distorted by the majority of the press. In particular, Rupert Murdoch's The Sun misses no opportunity to bash the EU over anything and everything, and the right-wing Daily Mail and Daily Express are no better.

4. It is possible to have a sensible debate about the pros and cons of the EU. When you're mature enough not to have that debate in the gutter, by making up facts and building delusions of some pan-European empire, then we'll talk further.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[sjf]

despite the typical yank viewpoint of "Congress controls the world"

Does anyone really believe that anymore ? Despite the constitution's demand for "checks and balances" The Republican congress has pretty much abrogated its responsibilities to the Executive branch. And, Cheney has explicity said that's the way he thinks it ought to be. Thus, the statement ought to be :"Bush controls the world (by fiat)."

[...] Cheney says, presidents have stood by as Congress has chipped away at their executive powers.

-S

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[Anonymous Coward]

1)Wow, you're as bad as blunket. Would you feel better if I had a name like "WIAKywbfatw"? Would that make you feel better about my "identity"? twat.

2)Those are the arguments, in substance, of the pro-Euro crowd. That yes, handing over power in fact increases our control and "influence". Try and deny it.

3)The debate about britain's future is indeed distorted by a biased press and media - the enormously biased, pro-european outlets like the Guardian, the BBC, etc. I'm sorry, your argument that the media is biased is a wash, there's just as much biased the opposite way, and the entire establishment itaelf is biased, as can be proven by the bait-and-switch they used to drag us in this far in the first place. I know it is irritating for you not to have absolute 100% totalitarian control over what the media says and it irks you, but personally it gives me hope.. it shwos we're not european yet, so our press is not as neutred as the French of the German.

4)Sorry, I call a superstate built up by non-democrat means entirely to suit the egos and ideals of the establishment and its ambitions to challenge the US (France) or regain the glory days (Britain) Empire. You need to understand that the majority of actual people in Europe have always been opposed in great majority to this scheme, and that it is entirely a prject of arrogant politicos. Most of the EU has a very poor democratic record tho, in fact they are mostly emergent democracies, so they have felt no great need to hold referendums on the important points, and all parties in each country tend to support the EU except extremists (like Haider in Austria) so where is democratic opinion to go in such a biased climate?

The desire to create a continental-scale state is fundamentally an imperial desire. That's the end of it, you can worm around this as much as you like, but it is true. And by the way, more Orwellian arguments about how nobody desires to make the EU a state, they just want to unite its army&police&currency&laws&executiv e will be laughable, and besides, you should know that it is only British europhiles that claim there is no desire to make the EU a state. European europhiles are very open about it. For example Delors would say it is the entire point of the EU all the time .. and how it made british europhiles squirm. "We can't let the truth out! shut up Delors!" Sigh. People like you are the death of democracy.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, a quick glance at your journal shows me you are of the "we must join the EU to challenge the power of the US" type. Unabashedly imperial, really. That's the french view.

Unfortunately, many eurosceptics are interminably and rabidly pro-American, to the point that they would love to see the UK join NAFTA and be ever-more slavish to the US. See the Daily Telegraph under Lord Black for this instinct.

Both these points of view are merely debates about precisely how Britain should continue the imperial project - ie in which imperial power structure should it throw in its hat and be the junior partner?

For myself, I reject both, and I want a Britain that eschews imperialism entirely.

Re:a nice idea, but it won't last

[WIAKywbfatw]

My journal says nothing of the sort. I'm decidely anti-imperialism and pro-free trade. The EU, first and foremost, is a free trading block, with people and goods able to move freely between states. Someone who's born in Denmark has just as much right to work in Britain as someone born there. A company in Spain can sell its goods in Sweden without any tarriffs being applied. Etc, etc.

On the debate about British imperialism in the past, I firmly believe that it's part of British heritage that can't be dismissed or shed but I just as firmly believe that imperialism (of any sort) isn't the way forward. It's precisely because of this that I'm for global responsibility and globally accepted solutions than unilateral or partisan ones, such as the short-sighted US-led invasion of Iraq and current US foreign policy in general.

If from that you want to (incorrectly) extrapolate that I'm pro-EU imperialism then that's your perogative. But that's about as logical as saying that anyone who opposes communism is a fascist, or vice versa.

Yes but...

[CountBrass]

Just wait until David "Hitler" Blunkett hears about it: there'll be new laws in parliament outlawing it or requiring any VOIP users to first prove, on pain of becoming Blunkett's new guide dog, that they are who they say they are. Edward PS: The fact that David Blunkett, a "Labour" (eg Socialist, left wing), is best mates with the editor of one the most right wing tabloids (the Daily Mail) has nothing to do with him behaving like a rabid dog: I think he must be trying to out right-wing Margaret Thatcher just to impress his editor friend.

Re:Yes but...

[nagora]

I think he must be trying to out right-wing Margaret Thatcher just to impress his editor friend.

No, he's just a fascist.

TWW

Re:Yes but...

[peterprior]

Hopefully he'll just turn a blind eye...

I'll get my coat..

Re:Yes but...

[mo^]

you waste yer mod points before the time expires then a corker like this appears!!!

i used to tech support the HO, and the common line there, when security clearnace was granted went along the lines of...

"I can read Blunketts email........ and thats more than he can do"

Re:Yes but...

[hedge_death_shootout]

No, he's just a fasci[hh]st.

You are Neil from The Young Ones, AICMFP (of brown rice).

Re:Yes but...

[perly-king-69]

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.

Re:Yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler Blunkett joke #2

Have you seen his wife?

Nor's he

Re:Yes but...

[manavendra]

Yeah, even worse would be Al Gore claiming he "invented" VoIP

Re:Yes but...

[fremsley471]

..at the other end of the Labour distribution from Blunkett is one T. Blair!

Re:Yes but...

[lxmeister]

Interestingly, Tony Blair is even further out from the rest of the labour party.

Re:Yes but...

[alex_tibbles]

That is rather distorted for front benchers (in particular the PM and his cabal) because they so rarely vote.

Re:Yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more worried about whoever Jamie Cann is, they look to be way out by themselves, not really near ANY groups.

Re:Yes but...

[ncw]

Very intersesting page! From the page is an explanation of why Blunket is so far away from the cluster...

Why is Tony Blair and his cabinet so far away from the rest of his party?

I suspect it's because they mostly show up to votes which tend to be on contentious issues when many MPs are rebelling. This gives them a higher than expected dissimilarity measure than if they turned up to all the non-contentious votes when there was no rebellion. They show up during these contentious issues in order to encourage their MPs to vote the way they want; the rebellions could have been larger had they not shown up.

The impression that they are pulling their party away from its centre of gravity, in the way that the leaders of the other parties are not, is probably correct.

Re:Yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet he wont see the funny side of it.

Re:Yes but...

[Metatron]

I think it might actually be the other way around. Over the course of a year, the contentious issues actually form a very small minority of the overall total vote. The Prime Minister especially and more than likely some other senior members of the cabinet traditionally have the lowest turnout in parliament out of any other MP due to the extra duties they have to perform, (or at least I think thats the official reason). Gordon's off crunching numbers and Tony's off serving drinks to Bush in the Whitehouse and as such they're not there to vote very often.

Re:Yes but...

[StressedEd]

Horror of horrors, a link on slashdot to something interesting!

I'd be curious to see the results of similar stuff with parliments of other countries, MEPs and the UN.

Food for thought.

Re:Yes but...

[Ohreally_factor]

If by VOIP you mean the Victory Over Intelligence Party, then no, Gore couldn't make any such claims. Bush on the other hand. . .

Re:Yes but...

[jonbryce]

You can get a pay as you talk mobile phone without any form of ID - just hand over some cash for the phone and a voucher and start talking.

Proving who you are isn't a problem because you don't need to even say who you are.

BT?

[peterprior]

"Our first task as regulator is to keep out of the way."

Lets hope they don't stay out of the way for too long, like they did with BT, especially given how quickly businesses get a foothold in these kinds of markets.

Re:BT?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Like they did with BT"? You're delusional. BT operates as one of the most heavily regulated ex-monopoly companies ever. Even British Gas have it easy compared to BT. Things have improved slightly since OFTEL gave way to OFCOM, but BT are still straitjacketed like nothing else.

Re:BT?

[peterprior]

How long did it take them to unbundle the local loop again ?

Re:BT?

[dave420]

Are you crazy? Oftel were so far up BT's ass. BT couldn't do anything without Oftel screaming "unfair! unfair! abuse of position!". BT wanted to slash call charges, and drastically reduce broadband costs, yet Oftel pipes up and says "that's abusing your position, and unfair to the smaller telcos who can't compete", and so BT has its hands tied. Of course, from the outside, it might look completely different.

The best thing that could happen to VoIP is Oftel staying away.

Re:BT?

[gowen]

Oftel pipes up and says "that's abusing your position, and unfair to the smaller telcos who can't compete"

No, what they said was "You can do that as soon as there's a free market, and not while you're a de facto monopoly for certain services: i.e. after you've unbundled the local loop."

BT then said, "Oh no, thats still a massive cash cow, and we thoroughly intend to continue to drag our feet over it."

Re:BT?

[womby]

How long did it take them to unbundle the local loop again ?

Considering oftel were created to oversee the un-bundling of the local loop and specifically chartered with watching BT to make sure they didn't trample on any new companies, I would have to say ....

Anywhere from 0 days to -1 year.

Re:BT?

[peterprior]

BT faces fines over local loop unbundling

Re:BT?

[womby]

which of course kicks me into line

Re:BT?

[dave420]

No, even if BT had unbundled every loop they can get their hands on, BT are still screwed. Their sheer size means Oftel doesn't let them do anything that they can get away with (due to their size) and other telcos can't. Oftel help, but they get in the way a hell of a lot more often :)

Re:BT?

[Anonymous Coward]

So? BT are the only telecoms operator in the UK who must provide a service to anyone in mainland UK: no matter how remote. If that means they have to string miles of polls across a mountain to get to you, they have to offer you service.[1] BT are regulated up the hilt but at the same time they're required to provide an almost monopoly like service. It's a pretty one sided deal. [1]: They don't have to pay for all of it, they only need to subsidise the cost. You'll pay the bulk.

Re:BT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that every nutjob seems to think that unbundling the local loop is going to magically solve everything? Just look at the US if you need proof that it doesn't much help. Besides which, other telcos are far more incompetent; I recently switched back to BT after several years with Blueyonder. BY couldn't keep my line connected and working for more than a couple of days at a time.

Re:BT?

[pavese]

Lol, BT unbundling the local loop??? If that's a joke, my sense of humour must be growing every minute! (sarcasm)

Re:BT?

[lovswr]

That is true for BT in their regulated businesses. I work for the unregulated side in the States (Thank God)...We're swinging free hear baby! I actually hate it when I have to call the regulated bloatship in the UK. The chaps are nice enough, but the procedural crap one has to go through to get something done is a nightmare. Cheers.

Re:BT?

[lovswr]

Before you spelling Nazi's boots jacked, I used the wrong "here" (as a pun, if you will) on purpose.

Re:BT?

[lovswr]

Ok..that should be...get your boots jacked....that's what I get for posting @werk :)

Re:BT?

[FireBook]

oftel do not exist any more. its 'Ofcom', and its much much much better. The Head of ofcom seems to be a real go getter, and someone who really understands the issues.

Full text of consultation

[mishmash]

Full text of UK OFCOM VOIP consultation , which contains 12 Questions which the Ofcom want comments on...

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)

Re:Full text of consultation

[clive_p]

I see that "OFCOM strongly prefers to receive responses as email attachments in Microsoft Word format". No doubt all other responses will be ignored - so that disenfranchises all us Linux users right away.

Ofcom are consulting

[Andy_R]

The story for us Brits here is not the rather waffly statement that ofcom "seem to be welcoming" VoIP, it's the hard fact that they are having a consultation period on it.

They want to know our views on issues such as mandatory provision of free 999 calls (our emergency number, equivalent to 911 in the USA).

The consultation ends on the 15th November. Here is how to respond. If we want a sensible VoIP policy in Britain, now would be a good time to ask the regulatory body for it.

Govt learned from Microsoft?

[veldstra]

Our first task as regulator is to keep out of the way

Sounds almost like "embrace and (later) extend" to me.

The 28 Questions

[mishmash]

• Question 1: What types of new voice services do you envisage becoming available in the future and what characteristics will they have that distinguish them from traditional voice services?
• Question 2: What are the main policy challenges raised by the introduction of new voice services for consumer protection and regulation?
• Question 3: Do you agree with the initial top level aims identified by Ofcom?
• Question 4: Are there other aims and criteria that Ofcom should consider?
• Question 5: Are there other key policy questions that Ofcom should be considering?
• Question 6: Do you agree with Ofcom's initial view that it is not necessary for all voice services to provide the same standard features as traditional telephone services, and that we should instead focus on enabling consumers to make informed decisions?
• Question 7: Do you agree with Ofcom's initial view that it is not desirable to draw a distinction between the regulation of services that look like traditional services and those that do not?
• Question 8: Do you agree with Ofcom's initial view that a distinction should not be drawn between the regulation of 'second line' services and 'primary' services?
• Question 9: Do you think that a threshold should be set at which new voice services should be required offer the same features as traditional voice services? If so, how should the threshold be set?
• Question 10: Do you agree that most providers would want to offer at least a basic form of access to 999?
• Question 11: Do you agree with Ofcom's initial view that consumers sufficiently value having access to 999 in order for them to wish to retain at least one means of 'high quality' (very reliable) access to 999 at home?
• Question 12: Do you agree with Ofcom's initial view that not all voice services should be required to offer access to 999 but that decisions about subscribing to and using such services must be properly informed? 55 New voice services
• Question 13: Do you agree with Ofcom's initial view that given some new services may not able to offer the same degree of reliability for emergency calls as traditional voice services, it is better that these services are able to provide less reliable access to 999 rather than preventing them from offering any access at all?
• Question 14: Do you agree with Ofcom's assessment of the costs and incentives for providers offering PATS?
• Question 15: Do you agree with Ofcom's understanding of the implications of the definition of PATS contained in the Directives?
• Question 16: Do you agree with Ofcom's understanding of the implications of this alternative approach?
• Question 17: Are there policy initiatives in other areas related to new voice services that Ofcom should be considering? Section 5
• Question 18: Although Ofcom is not consulting on its interim position, it would welcome your views on its interim policy to forbear from enforcing PATS obligations against new voice services which offer access to 999. Section 6
• Question 19: Is it reasonable to have different network integrity requirements for nomadic services compared to services at a fixed location, and how should consumers be made aware of this difference?
• Question 20: Do you think that it is better for Ofcom to: 1. Retain the Essential Requirements Guidelines in their current form; 2. Re-issue the Essential Requirements Guidelines, incorporating additional guidance in relation to Voice over Broadband and Next Generation Networks; or 3. Withdraw the Essential Requirements Guidelines, and apply the 'reasonably practical' test set out in General Condition 3
• Question 21: Do you think that there are reasonably practical measures that providers at a fixed location can take even if they do not directly control the underlying network?
• Question 22: What in practice should the roles of the network provider versus the service provider be for network integrity when the network

Expect ISP rates to rise

[Dancin_Santa]

It seems like this is a good deal for everyone all around except that in the end VoIP is still another manifestation of the infinitely malleable POTS system. All those bits are travelling over the same wires as those expensive long distance calls are. The only difference is in who is paying for that bandwidth.

With normal long distance calling, the burden is borne by the person making the call or the receiver in the case of a collect call. In VoIP, the burden is already being paid for by the backbone ISPs who provide overseas network connections over their fat pipes.

Guess who owns those fat pipes. If you said the phone company, you would be correct.

Once revenues start dropping from standard phone charges as more and more people switch over to VoIP, the phone companies will start looking for ways to gain more revenue via their most active systems, i.e. the long distance channels upon which the ISP backbones are structured.

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. 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.

Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[paedobear]

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.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[doofusclam]

Maybe. But the fact is that, for the amount of data sent over their pipes for voice, it's more efficient (read: less bandwidth) to use VoIP. So it costs the link owner less too.

POTS is outdated anyway. Broadband is a utility these days, and if the government want to mandate anything they should impose QoS terms on providers (at the moment there is no contractual obligation for a UK Broadband ISP to actually keep the service going, whereas for POTS a days down time can cost BT money). Once we have QoS on our broadband, then POTS will slower die off.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[jos3000]

I look at the current price advantages of VOIP as merely an insentive that will speed up uptake.

The real advantage, from my perspective, of VOIP is the flexable nature of the network and the new sorts of phone systems that can be set up. Systems that are functionally equivalent to todays office switchboards can be deployed over distributed locations and you can control all of the routing directly using your own server. There's no need to ask the phone company to add another extention. This is, of course, just one example.

Yes, prices will go up, but we will be able to get a more sophisticated service for the same cost.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[alex_tibbles]

But network consolidation is good for telcos too because managing a packet-only network is easier than managing a packet network and a circuit network and cheaper. Done well, a packet network can achieve higher throughput on the same pipes too. Also packet technologies are improving very quickly and getting cheaper per bps quickly too.
Of course there is the point that if I VOIP to someone on the same exchange as me, I'll probably make a long distance connection (exchange my ISP someone's ISP exchange).

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[Anonymous Coward]

Most countries don't have the long distance / local provider thing you Americans do.

What, you just have one monopolistic corporation that controls both local and long distance calling? Sounds like AT&T before 1984.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[JimStoner]

(FYI - I work onsite at Telcos and ISPs, designing and installing Customer Care and Billing systems)

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

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[doodlelogic]

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.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[gcaseye6677]

While I agree that eventually prices will rise due to some of these issues you pointed out, it's also worth remembering that traditional phone companies were generally monopolies. Sure they were regulated, but it's not hard to get a regulator to agree to a price increase. VOIP will always offer more competition than POTS ever could. It's trivially easy to switch VOIP providers, so that will provide an enormous incentive to them to keep prices reasonable.

Re:Expect ISP rates to rise

[Tripster]

The UK operates a strict calling party pays approach

Found this out the hard way after calling my mom in the UK from here in Canada. While normally I'm looking at about 9cents/minute to the UK because she has a "mobile" I was stung 49cents/minute. OUCH!

Needless to say I don't call much. If she wants me to call more she best be getting a real landline.

RIPA covers VOIP - it's internet communications.

[devitto]

OFTEL don't need to push the interception stance, because RIPA already covers it.

The US survelliance laws are _totally_ different to those of the UK.

Come and grab your gmail invite

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-3548a9e22d-8dbba1e 710-58415aa144
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-3548a9e22d-2c4b4e9 b78-41c27838c5
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-3548a9e22d-ed333f6 a4b-7307bf9e09
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-3548a9e22d-f11ba5c d40-fbd13f5292
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-3548a9e22d-c02e0d5 6e5-4e525b0a5b
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-3548a9e22d-e566735 57f-bb9f64ac4b

Re:Come and grab your gmail invite

[Anonymous Coward]

To the turd that modded this as "-1 Troll".

No these are not Goatse links like the others that are being posted, these are real invites.

Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

You say it like it was just a lie that they are the greatest and freest. But surely our American friends would not lie to us about important issues like that!

Re:Land of the free

[gowen]

You say it like it was just a lie that they are the greatest and freest.

America is definitely the #1. I know this to be true since I saw it on a giant foam rubber hand.

So does this mean

[Lord Kano]

That I'll be able to get a London Telephone number, while I remain in the US?

I'll finally be able to call the telephone numbers that are in European magazines.

LK

Re:So does this mean

[I confirm I'm not a]

That I'll be able to get a London Telephone number, while I remain in the US?

The BBC just mention 056 numbers in their article, but I'm sure my morning coffee-and-teletext session suggested that there'd be geographic numbers as well. I'm guessing you'd only be allowed an 0207/0208 number if your billing address was in London. Maybe you could get a friend or relative to ... assist you?

Re:So does this mean

[Anonymous Coward]

You can call those numbers from the states anyway - there's no restriction.

Or just use someone like www.gossiptel.com if you want your call to appear to originate in the UK.

Re:So does this mean

[Lord Kano]

You can call those numbers from the states anyway - there's no restriction.

I can't afford to. Transatlantic telephone calls are outrageously expensive.

LK

Re:So does this mean

[Anonymous Coward]

I regularly phone Austin, TX from England.

I pay 2 pence per minute (that's about 3.5 cents).

www.telediscount.co.uk

Re:So does this mean

[Malc]

No they're not. My current phone bill shows an hour phone call from Canada to UK cost me CAD$3 (~USD$2.25). That's just CAD$0.05/minute. That's cheaper than primetime local phone calls ten years ago in the UK!

Re:So does this mean

[rbbs]

Yes, although you can do that already

voip.org.uk - for suppliers.

I'm not convinced assigning a new prefix is a good measure anyway...as time passes the two will surely converge and then you'll be left with a mess of numbers that mean nothing....?

Re:So does this mean

[jrumney]

I can't afford to. Transatlantic telephone calls are outrageously expensive.

Transatlantic telephone calls are significantly cheaper than trans-english channel phone calls. Having a UK phone number isn't going to make a difference in the price you pay to call from the US to the UK anyway, it will only affect people calling in the other direction.

Re:So does this mean

[Quaryon]

Well, covergence didn't/hasn't happen with mobile phones - they still have their own prefix set.

As long as the pricing might be different for people calling different types of numbers, it makes sense to have a different prefix so that you know whether or not you're likely to be charged more/less for the call.

Q.

Re:So does this mean

[sjf]

I'll finally be able to call the telephone numbers that are in European magazines.

Yes, but those "ladies" advertizing in your magazines are still pretty unlikely to make a housecall to the US.

-S

Re:So does this mean

[rbbs]

agreed, but the distinction is only necessary if that is going to be the case - such as with mobiles...
i will be interested to see what happens - will each provider be allocated a batch of numbers?
if i am 12345@sip.provider.com will that translate to 05612345 - clearly not....there would have to be universal (worldwide) application support for this standard for it to be successful so i can call 056123457891 (where 056 is voip, 123 my provider and then 457891 my uid?) from my vonage phone and it to know to call a uk sip no over the net, and not to try and route it through pots....

my 2 pence...

Re:So does this mean

[Lord Kano]

Having a UK phone number isn't going to make a difference in the price you pay to call from the US to the UK anyway, it will only affect people calling in the other direction.

If it's VoIP and I'm assigned to an exchange in the UK, it will definately be cheaper for me to call around the UK than it would be for me to make a regular telephone connection there.

LK

Re:So does this mean

[DrHyde]

And it's possible to get a London number outside London without using VoIP, through any of - ooh, about a zillion companies. People from most such companies hang around in uk.telecom.

As for you thinking that having a new prefix is a bad idea - perhaps you should have raised that concern in the first consultation. The current consultation is just intended to clear up any loose ends.

Re:So does this mean

[DrHyde]

OFCOM are concerned with how POTS phone users can call VoIP users and vice versa. How VoIP users contact VoIP users is not particularly relevant.

When someone calls you from POTS-land, the 561234xxxx will route the call to your VoIP provider, who will then route it to you based on the remainder of the number.

Going the other way, when your call goes through your chosen provider's VoIP-to-POTS gateway in the UK, it will have an appropriate 056 number inserted in the SS7 data. This is essential for inter-telco billing purposes if the call has to transit another telco's network (which it usually does when calls are between people who don't use BT) to get to the intended destination.

But most people get broadband via their phone

[cardpuncher]

As most people in the UK who get broadband do so via their (regulated) phone line, regulating VoIP too would be overkill: most people will still have their emergency service via their regular phone and be able to make other calls in the same way.

When/if there is significant competition for the "last mile", I'm sure regulation will be revisited.

Re:But most people get broadband via their phone

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, I guess, that we have the chance *right now* to get things in place so that the regulation doesn't go tits-up when we're all on fibre-last-mile. I mean, I'm on cable, thanks to NTL, and I'd quite like the option of completely ditching my land line, but without a guaranteed emergency number or guaranteed expectation of privacy, I'd be quite loath to do so. I'd also be quite averse to any system that disallowed end-to-end encryption that *I* can control. These issues are here, right now, and at a point where we should reasonably have the ability to influence things. This is not a chance we should overlook.

Government staying out of the way?

[ShatteredDream]

What's next, American public schools that teach and don't allow bullying? Parents that actually take care of their kids? Lions that like to frollick in a pasture with sheep?

Stark contrast?!

[Anita Coney]

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."

Re:Stark contrast?!

[FireBook]

the issue is not taxing, it's that they want severely overburdensome 'features' built into voip allowing them to 'wiretap' (not a very good description for intercepting voice data in this manner) with impunity and ease.

999 on the way out

[Cybertect]

Not that it makes much difference to what you're saying, but it's being replaced with the EU standard 112

Single European emergency call number 1-1-2

AFAIK, they're currently parallel running both numbers.

Re:999 on the way out

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I seem to recall hearing something about 112 using a different call centre to handle this too and that you're better calling 112 if you want to prompt response.... but my brain collects all sorts of mostly useless information, so that might not be 100% accurate! :-)

Re:999 on the way out

[csteinle]

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.

Re:999 on the way out

[jeremyp]

"There's no good reason to stop it from working"

Well there is one: it's easy to dial accidentally with a push button phone.

Re:999 on the way out

[glesga_kiss]

Well there is one: it's easy to dial accidentally with a push button phone.

Ironically it was choosen initially because it was hard to dial accidentally! You could activate "112" while cleaning the phone if you hit the hang-up switch once, once, then twice. This is from the old days of pulse dialing.

An Unstoppable Wave

[webzombie]

No matter what those poor Americans do to try and stifle VoIP its not going to work because any legislation will appear to have been put in place to secure the existing monopolies.

People will inevitably find offshore alternatives just like most of the big US corporations did! LOL!

That should bring the democracy treat level to Holy Shit - Pink or whatever it is...

European Legislation is what matters to the UK

[mishmash]

I've just been browsing and noticed that a European Public Consultation on VOIP has just ended. Its consultation document is more complete than the UK Ofcom one though - for example it does consider interception and vulnerability questions.

An idea of the low level of discussion the European consultation provoked can be seen here.

More interesting is the fact the European document is very very very similar to the one issued by Ofcom.
I'd say Ofcom's done a poor and copy and paste and rephrasing job - too late to enable people in the UK influence the law that will affect them - and our journalists - on and offline have failed us in not bringing the European consultation to our attention.

Re:European Legislation is what matters to the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean we'd have been able to influence it if it was a UK-only law?

Naturally.

[base3]

You don't start squeezing the industry until it's reached a critical mass. Otherwise, you kill the golden goose before it's laid its first egg. By waiting and pretending you'll regulate lightly, you encourage investment. Once there's a lot of money sunk in, you can tax and tighten all you want, so long as there's an economic profit for the investors.

VoIP & SIP Phones in Canada?

[MichaelCrawford]

Is there a VoIP service in Canada that uses SIP phones?

What I want, if I understand it correctly, is something that looks like a regular phone that I can plug into my home LAN, and use to dial regular phones anywhere else.

Do these things work on a network with IP masquerading? I use a debian box for a gateway & firewall, I could do port forwarding or something if it were needed.

The problem is finding a service I can use in Canada. Just try using Google to find products sold in Canada, or any other country other than the US. You can't really do it.

I've been spending about $300 a month in long distance. My clients and my family are all in the US, and my wife's family are all in another province. VoIP could really help.

Thanks for any advice you can give me.

Re:VoIP & SIP Phones in Canada?

[Tripster]

Vonage.ca for VoIP, another option if you are in BC, Alberta or Ontario is to use 101-8888 dial-around service when making calls within North America.

99cents for 45 minutes, 5 cents a minute thereafter, and you can also get free calls if you get lucky enough (we've been using this service for a couple weeks now and have received 2 free calls so far).

http://www.1018888.com/

Try Vonage

[theluckyleper]

Try Vonage. I live in Canada, and I have a Vonage phone for work. Free long distance to anywhere in US and Canada, for cheap. I haven't had any complaints with the service, either. The only times I've had trouble were when my ISP crapped out.

Nice diatribe, in theory

[paranode]

But in practice, they need probable cause and a warrant to use a wiretap. Though I'm sure you're like most Euros who think they're spying on us anyways, collecting all that damning evidence against us every day. And of course it's not worth mentioning that illegal wiretaps can't be used in courts. Oh, but that's right, we won't get a trial will we? Good old secret black ops will come into our house and drag us into Camp X-Ray and we'll never see the light of day again! Oh the agony, I wish I didn't live in such a country where they respect no freedoms!!

Re:Nice diatribe, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to re-read USAPATRIOT if you think the authorities need probable cause. Warrants can be and are obtained at a drop of a hat, behind closed doors, without any oversight. A judge will sign a wiretap warrent no questions asked. Even Homeland Defense admit it.

Re:Nice diatribe, in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about roving wiretaps I presume? PATRIOT allows intelligence to use them without probable cause if authorized by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If you are on their watchlist, well I'm glad that they're invading your privacy.

Fact is, you never read the USA PATRIOT act and all you know about it is you heard some liberal conspiracy website talk about how it was the end of the Constitution and your privacy. Grow on up.

Wiretap costs?

[Anonymous Coward]

As of this past weekend, the beforementioned "wiretapping" costs have been alleviated within the Asterisk community. One of the contributing members released ChanSpy, which allows eavesdropping on all channel types support by *.

If a member can crank out code in a weekend to alleviate this issue, I seriously doubt the new wiretapping regulations will hinder any service providers in the long run.