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."
For the corps of course.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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??
This has nothing to do with control in that sense. This has everything to do with maintaining their share of the market. After all, if it _was_ about controlling information, don't you think that those who purvey unpopular opinions would have a hell of a time getting phone service? Ma Bell and Friends seem all too happy to service anybody so long as the check clears.
And doesn't this go beyond their mandate?
Where is it written that anytime something new arrives the government has to come along and shit all over it?
How do they propose to even define VoIP? Does iChatAV count? Does it have to be real time? If so, how do you define that? What is the level of latency before it becomes unregulated? If it doesn't have to be realtime do you then tax attaching .aiff files to e-mail? Is it all about phone numbers? How long after they start regulating it that way before people simply abandon that archaic addressing scheme?
No, no, no, no, no. Nobody apart from the endpoints should have any reason to look at anything besides the IP header. We've already departed too far from that state of affairs.
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
Sinclair nothing, this is the same FCC that engineered such a giveway of public airspace to private corporations it resulted in the worst public backlash in the Commission's history, forcing a repeal. Powell is unquestionably a whore of private media interests and acting in complete, almost criminal neglect of the FCC's mandate. If Powell calls for regulation of VOIP the smart money ignores the 'moral' stance and looks for who will benefit. My guess is he's doing this for his telco buddies.
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!)
*does best impression of parent poster*
*cough*
BRING BACK OIL TRUSTS
MEDIA ISNT DEREGULTATED ENOUGH. RUPERT MURDOCH ONLY OWNS 100 JAZILLION STATIONS
PRICEFIXING IS THE PRICE NOBODIES PAY FOR NOT BEING RICH
and the classic:
THE MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. MINIMUM WAGE LAWS KEEP WAGES LOW!!!!
sigh
Right here in Chicago, DSL is tough to get in the nearby suburbs because SBC isnt rolling it out unless they get a big fat deregulation handout from the feds. Hopefully with a way to crush competitors paying to use their lines.
Cable monopolies own entire towns and are usually they only way to get internet access. Chicago prices: 59.99 a month.
Media deregulation and the repeal of the fairness doctrine has created a media newstainment ecology that often reflects ownership bias. Something like 60% of all Fox News viewers believe there is a 9/11 Saddam connection.
But please, dont let facts get in the way of a good lassiez-faire wankfest.
Also, I'll let you in on a little secret. The FCC, congress, et al tend to do the bidding of big business. Its the ol' favor system. Established business has been pushing for regulating VoIP because its a threat to their profits. In other words, the problem isnt regulation its corruption. Regulation just happens to be the tool.
Doesn't some POTS already go over the Internet? Or at least, packet switched rather than circuit switched?
The point I'm trying to get at is, isn't it likely that at some point in the future there won't be a PSTN and everything will be IP based? At that point, what do we do about VoIP regulation?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz