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."

41 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Wow by metlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Wow by hondo77 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?

      I guarantee you that Michael Powell is not the second coming of Christ.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    2. Re:Wow by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah well ... pigs fly now and then you know. Usually because they've been pushed off a roof, but still.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Wow by shigelojoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next you'd be telling me there are no dupes on Slashdot.

      What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?


      I wonder how many /.-ers would say "OMG Dupe!!" after the second coming of Christ. ;)

    4. Re:Wow by themassiah · · Score: 3, Funny

      We call that "activation energy". *rimshot* I'll be here all week!

      --
      - Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
  2. Federal regulation + Corporate direction = by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Profit!

    For the corps of course.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:Federal regulation + Corporate direction = by Smoodo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If regulation happens a certain firm with cash may jump in and say "REGULATE ME PLEASE!!!" because they are closer to conforming with whatever regulations will be passed. This will create a barrier to entry for small guys because they can't afford to comply. Goodbye competition.

      This happened with the Tabacco companies. Let's see what happens here.

  3. Fuck regulation! by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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.

    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.

    1. Re:Fuck regulation! by slimyrubber · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.
      The regulations arent just about money, they are also about control. Once you start controlling information, you become extremely powerful. I bet agencies like mpaa and riaa are really pissed that internet had very little government control to begin with.. and they are really trying to change that whether its really working or not.
      --
      [ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
    2. Re:Fuck regulation! by wealthychef · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if we don't regulate it, how will we stop terrorists from sending pornography to the children? Save us, FCC!

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    3. Re:Fuck regulation! by prostoalex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH! VoIP doesn't need regulation.

      But then if Comcast launches its own VOIP operator, as they have been rumored to do, and your Vonage/Packet8 calls suddenly experience worse than expected quality of service and inexplicable drops and hiccups, who will you appeal to, but the good ole US gov?

    4. Re:Fuck regulation! by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Fuck regulation! by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any company that were to do as such would be guilty of RESTRAINT OF TRADE. That's already a crime. You don't need 'regulation' to be protected from that...you need a government that enforces its own fucking laws.

    6. Re:Fuck regulation! by prostoalex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read up Lawrence Lessig. While the telephone networks (and hence DSL lines) are considered to be public service, cable lines are the property of the cable operator.

      Comcast, Adelphia and others did not use the public money to build it, so they do not have to give up control over it. With the broadband rush 5 years ago the ISPs around the States sued the cable companies to open up access for providing ISP services to the residential. No cigar - the cable lines are the property of the cable company, you only have control over your dollars (that you choose to give them or deny them), you do not have control over their content.

      Comcast can do whatever they please.

    7. Re:Fuck regulation! by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read up on the definition of Restraint of Trade. We're not talking about requiring them to deliver service to the competition, but impairing the services they have been contracted to deliver simply because the company in question is providing a competing service. Whether they should be required to do business with them in the first place is not relevant.

    8. Re:Fuck regulation! by Trolan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As long as Unnamed ISP has no legal ties to the VoIP carrier which is being theoretically impacted in this case, I don't see how Restraint of Trade comes into it, unless you bring market coverage %age into it. If they don't wish to transit traffic across their network, they really aren't legally obligated to. The end-user ToS already has stipulations resrtaining what their ISP will allow on their connection, so it would be easy enough to leverage that to snip out VoIP traffic as being 'detrimental to general network health'

      Now, Comcast could fall afoul of this due to their size, if they are also offering a competing service. The whole monopoly/antitrust routine we went through with Microsoft. Similar basis: company with large market presense establishes barriers to competing products by leveraging their scale to favor their services. Smaller ISPs in a competitive market would likely be able to drop traffic at their whim.

      Personally, I wouldn't appreciate such an ISP's methods, but I would agree with the ISP putting in place a "Don't call us for VoIP issues" policy. Many of the smaller providers do just fine with non-realtime traffic, but they'd show their flaws with VoIP.

    9. Re:Fuck regulation! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *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.

  4. Inevitable - but where to start .. ? by OneNonly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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??

    1. Re:Inevitable - but where to start .. ? by OneNonly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm from Australia and so it makes little diffence where the regulation is being implemented in this particular example..

      I just wish there was some way for the IETF to impose good practices on VoIP carriers and telcos in an *international* manner - rather than state by state or nation by nation.

      Yeah, that's going to happen :'(

  5. To FCC or not to FCC by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:To FCC or not to FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FCC needs radical change.

      As of late, it has limited free speech and has encouraged the complete commercialization of radio and TV. No damn good!

      Obviously broadcast frequencies need to be regulated but only to ensure multiple parties do not broadcast in the same area at the same frequency. Content should be off limit.

      Ownership is another matter. Consolidation has caused irreperable harm to the quality of radio. I'm not suggesting we socialize it (the ultimate consolidation), but it needs to be regulated to encourage diverse* ownership. Which, by the way, does lead to more diverse programming.

      Michael Powell has been a regular proponent of deregulation and censorship.. Making one correct decision doesn't warm me up to him much.

      *BTW don't confuse my usage of the word "diverse" with the Newspeak (a.k.a. PC) usage. Not talking about race or religion or anything of the sort.

    2. Re:To FCC or not to FCC by antiMStroll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:To FCC or not to FCC by Saeger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If seeing a tit on TV causes moral decay, as you blindly believe, why hasn't Europe descended into barbarism with rapes left and right, etc.? They've got more primetime Tits & Ass in the media over there than violence, and the U.S. is just the opposite.

      Could it be that sexual freedom isn't a BAD thing at all? That is, unless you're a religious control freak getting bitter with age.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  6. Regulate? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Regulate? by nsayer · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Mod Parent Up!

      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.

    2. Re:Regulate? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      911 emergency service access, primarily. Most other justifications are kinda flaky, though.

    3. Re:Regulate? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

  7. Interesting and contradicting. by Leykis101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    -------

    1. Re:Interesting and contradicting. by Matrix14 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which ones are the Republicans again?

      (TWAJS)

  8. Badnarik supporter eh? by CyberThalamus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  9. eventually by divot2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Wasn't it their job to regulate the airwaves? by lpontiac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And doesn't this go beyond their mandate?

  11. The motivation for this is clear by johnthorensen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  12. Re: FCC Insists Feds Should Regulate VoIP by c1ay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

  13. Public Interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  14. Their job was to create and protect monopolies by billstewart · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The FCC's original job was partly to eliminate unregulated competition for the radio spectrum, ostensibly in the name of "protecting" the public's commons from interference, but in reality protecting the power of the early corporate interests who grabbed lots of spectrum, and regulating the content of speech you were allowed to broadcast. There were better alternatives - letting the market evolve formal or informal property rights, which happened in many places before government takeovers, and happened in Italy during much of the 80s and 90s when radio stations basically ignored the regulators but got along fine with each other. There were also worse alternatives - too many governments totally nationalized their airwaves, taking control away from the public and giving it to government propaganda stations. (Some of those produced some high quality material, like the BBC, but that was largely the exception.)

    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
  15. First "Tel Co's should worry" then "Regulate VoIP" by ivi · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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!)

  16. Re:12x that #? why? by zentec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Yes, those who are less than technically savvy are going to be very wary of it. So they'll spend $15 per month for a Voicepulse account and keep the landline. For a couple months, until they realize that $15 buys the essentially the same thing they're paying some ILEC $50 when they could be paying a VoIP provider a lot less.

    Money talks.

    2. How so? VoIP requires an analog telephone adapter that plugs into your existing corded and cordless phones. They all work great. And here's something that'll make your hair stand on end and a lot of people on Slashdot just can't seem to grasp about VoIP; you'll need a VoIP provider for a very long time because a large percentage of the world will still be on the circuit switched POTS network.

    So while the concept of point-to-point VoIP calls over the Internet is sexy, it's likely your calls to grandma will still need a POTS line somewhere. So when the rest of the world catches up to you, enjoy your ATA and your plain old telephones.

    3. You obviously do not have a family with teenagers. My monthly home telephone minutes are in excess of 800 minutes. $15 on Voicepulse gets me half of my state as a local phone call and 200 minutes of long distance. I don't think any cell provider could touch that.

  17. yawn by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  18. Ignites?? by surprise_audit · · Score: 3, Funny
    Did nobody else find this amusing??

    Powell is a strong proponent of VoIP (and a Skype user), and considers it the technology that ignites (not competes with) telecom industry.

    My immediate thought was that he meant ignite as in burn to the ground...

  19. typical by Wansu · · Score: 3, Insightful



    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