Slashdot Mirror
FCC Insists Feds Should Regulate VoIP
prostoalex writes "FCC Chairman Michael Powell insists federal officials should be the only ones regulating VoIP, as trusting the Internet phone regulations to states would result in patchwork of conflicting legislature. Powell is a strong proponent of VoIP (and a Skype user), and considers it the technology that ignites (not competes with) telecom industry. Research shows that fewer than 1 mln Americans use VoIP today, but that's expected to increase 12x by 2009."
To do so, Powell said, "is to dumb down the Internet back to the limited vision of government officials. That would be a tragedy."
A government official who admits that the government's "vision" is screwed up?
First, Microsoft is not as evil as they could be.
And now, FCC actually wants to help the users?
Next you'd be telling me there are no dupes on Slashdot.
What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?
Sheesh!
And now, I'm getting a first post too?
For the corps of course.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Is it just me that thinks that Michael Powell looks like he could be related to Tony Soprano?
-- This SIG is FCC complaiant.
Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH! VoIP doesn't need regulation. This is nothing more than a cheap attempt by POTS providers to secure their cash cow by regulating the competition to death.
Regulation of VoiP is inevitable - especially as it starts to become more main stream (and especially when the major carriers begin to switch over to it).
I just wish the regulation would start by getting all carriers to allow user defined ENUM records - and allow the Voip revolution to start in a big way.
If I can specify a SIP address in Enum for my own home phone number, then anyone using SIP phones that looked up ENUM could be routed to this number, and bypass the carrier all together.. But how many carriers can we actually see implementing this without some form of government intervention??
What a conundrum. On this score, I'd have to agree that if anyone is to regulate the VoIP market, it should be at the federal level. I actually agree with his statement that otherwise you'd get a patchwork of regs, which would be bad.
On the other hand, this is the same FCC that hasn't moved an inch on Sinclair's intended abuse of the airwaves, is working incredibly hard to remove that "obscene" breast (that'd be the same breast most babies see multiple times a day!) from TV, and does other sundry things.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Why should anyone regulate VOIP? If I'm streaming bits from my computer to my friends computer across the country, what business of the government is it if it's voice or anything else. How are they even going to know?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There is nothing to regulate, why get the Feds mixed up in this crap so they can muck it up like everything else. People know you don't have 911 with VoIP, and there fine with it, fine with not paying for it especially.. those who want it can do e911 type services from Vonage, etc.. The only potential good that could come out of regulation would be in local number portability, but I can live without it if it means the government won't mess with what is really just an Internet service to public telephone network provider. Any one here can be a VoIP PSTN right now.. What would the Internet be like right now if regulations over Internet Service Providers made it so AOL, MSN, and the like were the only providers who could be competitve.
Research shows that fewer than 1 mln Americans use VoIP today, but that's expected to increase 12x by 2009.
So does that mean that in 2009, 12 out of every million Americans will be using VoIP? Wow, that is sad. Or is my mathematical skills just sad?
Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell. As We all know that Colin Powell is the current Secretary of State under George W. Bush Administration. A Republican Administration.
Michael Powell is a registered Republican.
Interestingly, the GOP always preaching to have a smaller government and regulate the industry less.
Now, it seems that FCC, with a Republican Chairman is pushing an un-Republican agenda.
There is a really interesting article on msn.com regarding Michael Powell, The son of Colin Powell, the FCC Chairman.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078879/
Makes you wonder.
Howard Stern is right!
-------
I know, used to be an extreme libertarian myself. I think this is a good idea. A bunch of states with regulations would be a huge headache. And no regulation will be fine post-singularity. For now, I really need a good emergency service.
With the cyberthalamus, the singularity will happen.
Right?
Of course the VoIP infrastructure should be regulated by the federal government; when it has a larger portion of the market and the technology has matured. In the meantime, regulation by the states would only explore alternatives for when it eventually becomes necessary to enact federal statutes. And the communications industry will continue to impede the development of VoIP, since it is cheaper to only lobby one group of officials.
And doesn't this go beyond their mandate?
From the telcos' perspective, there is a lot of motivation to centralize the authority over VoIP. Why? Because they know the freight train is coming and they would like to send all their lobbyists to one place (Washington) instead of having to spread their efforts out to every state capitol.
:)
If you want to protect VoIP, the best thing we can do is have the individual states regulate it. Security through heterogenity works against attacks on technology as well as for computer networks
-JT
I really don't see why it should be regulated at all. Once the voice is digitized it becomes data packets like all of the other data packets traveling the web. What's the point in government regulating voice data packets? Sounds to me like the government providing insurance to the phone companies to protect their rackets like long distance. Kind of like the health insurance the mob used to sell, pay up and you'll stay healthy.
Not to mention the way the state are going to try to jump in and bleed the industry with state-level regulation (taxation). On the one hand states (if no federal regulation exists) will be taking TONS of complaints (who are you going to turn to?) as less reputable companies try to cash in on VOIP and on the other you'll have politicians eyeing VOIP as an untapped source of new revenue (or old telcom tax replacement, whatever).
Quack, quack.
Either you are on the inside, working for Bush, part of the problem, and you are trying to shove a monkey wrench into the gears, and you want total power, by having EVERYTHING monitored: phones, cells, packets, etc.
OR you are a complete moron, have no idea what BPL, and other attacks on media (Indymedia), and alternative communications Shortwave, Ham, and a plethra of other frequencies, channels, in either event
YOU are the new domestic enemy.
Do you have any idea what I am saying?
The WAR on TERROR, has become DOMESTIC TERROR!
Expect to be a target when you act like this. Expect your equipment to be destroyed. Expect lawsuits, Powel should be in jail.
If you are in the military you have sworn an oath to protect this country against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
Get busy.
Relax, mate.
I do know what you are talking about.
Which is why we need better crypto and cooler A/TSCM's - that is the way we're going to beat them.
That was just a funny joke, that's all.
okay sorry. Sounded like you were on the darkside or something. Trying to discredit and blow the whole thing off as some tin-foil hat issue.
No probs.
:)
It's only a matter of time before people are going to strike back, trust me.
America has always proved resilient to attempts at stifling innovation, and it will continue too. We'll come through the crucible just fine, just like how we have all these years
The FCC rarely seems to be acting in the public interest these days. Here is an interesting article about how they're reducing access to the internet for the benefit of corporations.
AFAIK VOIP is intended to replace existing telephone but I dont know how they are going to do that. I see 3 big challenges.
1. those that are less than tech savvy are going to be wary of it,
2. No cordless ability. And if they were they would probably have to connect through 802.11 requiring a router then there's privacy worries and extra cost etc.
3. Cell phones offer much more mobility and easier access than VOIP I already ditched my landline in favor of a cell phonedont make any out of state calls and I have statewide calling so I see no benefit to pay for another phone service.
Additionally, they became the Federal regulators of the interstate aspects of the telephone monopolies, though those had already become largely state-regulated because the "regulated monopoly" tradeoff of exclusive power to offer a service in return for politically correct implementation and pricing is basically a geographical monopoly at the local scale.
Much of the New Deal really worked that way - trading off favors for regulation while telling the public that they were beating up the evil nasty monopolies.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Most of the POTS providers are also trying to get into the VOIP game, because that's where the low-cost emerging technology is, so they've got mixed positions here. The biggest costs in typical VOIP-to-POTS environments are the customer premises equipment (VOIP routers or whatever) at the VOIP end and the local telco's per-minute price for delivering analog voice to houses at the destination. The telcos are often still charging 2 cents per minute for that, in spite of the amortized cost of the long-haul portion being 1/10 cent per minute, and unless something is done to change that regulatory structure, everybody's going to be building ugly workaround architectures.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
He's not coming back, and chances are he's just a fabrication of the church anyway. The dude he's based off of probably retired in France.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
In a land where the gov't used to own 100% of the only TelCo on the continent (Australia),
we know how gov't control of telecommunications goes.
But - more recently - we noticed (on wwwl.Skype.com) a reference to the FCC's head,
just after he tested Skype, suggesting that TelCo's should be worried...
Now, we read that FCC insists that it regulate VoIP...
I guess that means the worries of TelCo's will be less (in USA, at least)
Oh, in Oz, Telstra seems to be retaining 90+ % of our telecomms market...
Telstra: "What? Me Worry?"
(Never!)
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
The FCC is looking for any justification to perpetuate its political power. With technology advances and concentration of corporate broadcast ownership, both of which further the agenda of Republicans like Chairman Powell, they need to secure other bases for their control. The old "less government for more people" rhetoric is classic Republican smokescreen for more government. And Powell is playing right according to the playbook.
--
make install -not war
I really don't see why it should be regulated at all
two words why it will: Lawful Intercept
However interestingly enough Telstra only has about 50% of the Australian broadband market. When the Howard government sells the rest of Telstra in 2006 expect landline connection costs to go thru the roof and ISP to be charged heaps more to access Telstra's infrastructure. They are going to find some way to make money after VoIP ends their phone income. All those mom and pop share owners are going to want a return on their investment.
What was that bash.org quote...'The most secure computer is one that is not connected to the internet, that's why I recommend Telstra ADSL'.
I would have to add that not only should the government get totally away from VOIP, but the real question is how can it be done at all?
While I could see some "regulation" of dealing with the interface between VoIP servers and conventional land-line carriers, I totally fail to see how it would be even possible to stop me from making my own software, sending a copy to a friend or even a group fo friends, and setting up what is essentially a PBX system. Any regulation of speech over IP is simply going to be regulation of all data over IP, and just where are you going to draw the line there?
And even assuming that all TCP/IP packets are monitored, I fail to see how it would be technically possible to stop private networks from sharing data without going through government-controlled access channels. China (People's Republic) has a virtual monopoly on internet access of any kind, and even there they can't seem to stop all "news" from outside of goverment channels making it through. If China can't stop unauthorized internet traffic, what makes you think the FCC could stop enterprising individuals from saying "to hell with the FCC rules"?
It seems like there is only one good solution. That is for only _COMMERCIAL_ VOIP should be regulated, and even those regulations should be kept to a minimum. Free VOIP programs should have no regulations. The problem with not regulating commercial VOIP services is that most of the telephone companies are switching over to VOIP. There needs to be some sort of regulation to support a national telephone directory, emergency calling, and other services. On the other hand, free services should be able to do whatever they want. If someone wants to use an open source program to call a friend in another state, that should be their own business.
Check your figures... most of the others still
:-(
buy their ADSL from Telstra's wholesale arm...
That's why the ACCC issued a warning of Telstra,
that might have cost them big, eg, for pricing
their RETAIL ADSL -below- their WHOLESALE price-
levels.
Telstra is still pretty much "the only game in
Aussie town"...
We still hate doing business with this dinosaur!
My immediate thought was that he meant ignite as in burn to the ground...
This is consistent with all the other stuff Powell has done. He's a corporate welfare handout man. He just can't wait to get his hands on VoIP. Oh, the power brokering leverage that would give him. This little caesar is the reason we don't have fiber to the curb today. No sooner did he liquidate the RF spectrum then he's ready to cannabalize the internet too. He's gotta go.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
You have this right on.
ROT does not apply here. This is no different than a Mall owner being selective about what shops come in to sell at their premise. They may prohibit other companies from offering direct electricity as they want to sell it to the companies located in the mall.
Comcast (and other cable companies) sells you the right to access the internet, but with their provisos. They do not have to give total cart blanche to it. In fact they have clauses that you may not use a server. This condition alone is enough to disallow VOIP (the sip device is a server).
But this whole set-up will head towards a monopoly situation as most cables companies demand that they be the only provider in a certain area. In doing so, they have set up the monopoly regulations being applied against them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You know, if you really believed in the internet and the power of free and open communications you wouldn't be grumbling like this. What happens when the people in VA say vonage cannot keep subscribers there unless they provide 911 service to every rural customer? Or when MS says they have to pay taxes to the state for every call made here?
Federal regulations can help industries grow by providing protection from inconsistent laws that may be enacted purely in their own self interest - like making it hard for a company in GA to compete with the boys back home in TN. Given the state of our school systems today I can understand you may not have been given this lesson in history class, but such practices are as old as our union. If you weren't so blinded by your OWN agenda you might be able to see the value in such federal governance.
Powell believes in the value of the internet to grow ON ITS OWN. That does NOT mean making it easy for "internet radio stations" to become another wasteland of corporate pop, nor does it mean moves that seem to "embrace" corporations by allowing the old school broadcast spectrum to further deepen this wasteland should be taken at face value.
If the local TV stations and newspapers are all controlled by corporate interests - yet every home is eqipped to receive unlimited local information via the internet - do you not see the opportunity for individuals to provide these services? All it takes to become your own LOCAL news source is a free account on any of dozens of services and the will to fulfill a need rather than complaining how no one will do it for you. You want to be a broadcaster? Setup a wifi mesh and have at it - all the free bandwidth your community can muster.
You want competition? Compete. Powell isn't stopping you.
The Feds cannot regulate VoIP. The Internet is international. They may make stupid laws preventing guys in the US from talking to each other, or the rest of the world using VoIP, but so what? Most of the world, believe it or not, does not reside in the US.
When it comes to the phone system, regulation is important for one reason only - 911.
Vonage doesn't ever support 911 in all areas right now. Even if they did, the calls are packets routed over the internet - what if the connection quality drops while you are speaking to emergency personnel? What about the 911 caller locator service? They'll have to make that work over VOIP too if it is going to gain this much popularity. This will likely require national standards and regulation.
Just wait until the first person who uses VOIP (or even a visitor to their house) dies because they couldn't reach a 911 operator, and the victim's parents start screaming hellfire to their congressman.
Their job is to regulate communications technologies. Thus they are the Federal Communications Commission, not the Federal Airwaves Commission.
Best Slashdot Co
We absolutely have to keep the FCC from interfering with legitimate mass marketing business on our VoIP phones!
Best Slashdot Co
It gets worse. Some of that pornography has embedded steganographic messages
-kgj
In order to have effective VoIP you have to have broadband internet service. Currently where I live there are only two real options. DSL through the phone company or broadband cable through Time Warner.
So let's see...
DSL through phone company - phone service already regulated by FCC (including additional fees...) CHECK
Broadband through TWC - Cable already regulated by FCC (including additional fees...) CHECK
So how is my VoIP not regulated?
If they levy MORE fees on my VoIP provider then I'd want to know what those fees were and if I was already paying them.
LNP fee? F* that, I already paid into that black hole with my previous ILEC and they wouldn't even port my number, no thanks.
911 fee? Maybe, if they'll hook my VoIP provider DIRECTLY into the 911 service. But don't charge me again on my DSL bill.
Franchise Fee? F* no, it's a dumb fee anyway. Besides I'm already paying that to my cable company.
So what is this regulation going to ADD for the consumer?
=Shreak
I don't know... Communism can't be that bad...
but I'd love to see the Government regulate the utilities again. With Carter deregulating oil, then later, the deregulation of electrics by Clinton, this whole deregulation bullshit is causing extravagantly high prices in some areas while others get to "coast". Granted some of your prices may be higher or lower depending on where you live, but I paid $2.19/gallon for gas last night. I started driving when gas was $1.17/gallon and that was only 8 years ago. This $2/gallon bullshit needs to stop - soon I won't be able to afford driving to work! I have a 13.8 gallon tank that now costs over $30 to fill. Back in the day, it only cost me a mere $17.
Deregulation of VoIP only spells higher costs in the future - see exhibit A, and B. Gas and Electric.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
My first tank of gas cost me $.17 per gallon. Oh for those days again.
Stop whining. In the UK, it's $8 a gallon.
Or for a longer term perspective, try this graph of constant-price gas prices.
Give life
FierceVoIP named the leaders in this industry. And I don't believe any of them will give in to the FCC.. html
http://press.arrivenet.com/bus/article.php/472110
Thanks for showing us bigotry and intolerance is not unique to the south.
You know me not at all. You don't know where I was born, how I was raised, who I associate with or where I have lived, but I'm a bigot because I'm from the south and... ROTFL.. you're NOT?
Did your momma have any kids born with a clue? I see you can link to dictionary entries, but apparently you cannot read them.
I'm not even going to waste the karma on this one - you're not worth it. Ciao.
No, you'll post as an Anonymous defensive Coward, because you fear confrontation of your nonsense. If you're "poptones", or anything like them, you're from NE Mississippi, as posted. If you're poptones, you're braying praise of a state that has recently been desegregted again , after defining the Southern racism and segregation of the 20th Century, the symbol of fighting equality until defeated. A state that still underrepresents its Black population by 65% in the universities of which you're so proud, but which are third rate schools, getting expensive gifts of supercomputers for the tax money I send you.
Let's get right down to it, backwards illiterate: I generously showed you the definition of "bigot":
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
You're such a slave to your swamp that your hick fetish lets you think that your neighbors are smart. That's what makes you a bigot, not just where you're from. Plenty of people beat the odds by growing up in the South, and learning to think for themselves - I see them all the time here in New York City, where they've escaped to civilization. I'm no bigot, but I have lived in the South, and I know what it's like. I have intolerance for selfrighteous fools who have such limited experience that they'll spout nonsense comparing backwaters to the greatest city in the world. Bringing up "momma" insults just underscores the garden variety of your stereotypical attitude. Just stay in the South where you can only hurt your cousins.
--
make install -not war