Slashdot Mirror
SBC's VoIP End Run
Chris Holland writes "Right on the heels of a positive FCC regulation preventing individual U.S. States from levying taxes on VoIP communications, SBC, according to Om Malik, appears to have brought to a quick end the 'lets not pay any termination fees' party that had VoIP upstarts drunk. Jeff Pulver is also sharing his take."
I don't know how VoIP works now, so may be someone can explain what exactly SBC is planning here, but...
Say, I have an appliance in my house which connects to the net and sends encrypted traffic to some server somewhere out there using one of the standard protocols and ports (https, or one of vpn protocols). Said appliance happens to me by internet phone, and the encrypted traffic carries voice. The server could be that of Vonage, or Vonage could contract with some big VPN provider or some other third party as well. What is SBC going to do? Trottle down all SSL/https, and all VPN? Unlikely. Figure out which ones are Vonage's? Can be pretty hard, they all look the same, that's the idea.
Now, if Vonage currently does not do it and sends voice unencrypted or using some easilly identifiable dedicated ports or protocols, this is bad ofr many reasons, mostly it's bad for us users, but now it's bad for Vonage too, so may be they will change it to a more secure protocol. That would be good for everyone.
I get both phone and Internet over the cable TV
network, but no TV! (they look at me like I have
two heads or something)
It's cheaper this way.
Currently I believe VOIP provides interconnect with the landline telephone network by means of CLECs, at least where they can. Presumably the CLECs charge them less than the BOCs. SBC may be introducing a tariff to compete with the CLECs for the VOIPs interconnect business.
Many overlooked the fact that Cisco bought a company called P-Cube recently. One of the things P-Cube can do is prioritize the traffic flows on an IP network. SBC could use it and lower the priority of the traffic coming from say Vonage or AT&T. Nothing illegal here: SBC's network and it can do pretty much what it wants on its own network. Poor quality, lags, dropped packets and soon Vonage customers could be switching to SBC VoIP: which is more expensive, has better quality and of course is highly profitable.
Actually, it *is* illegal to directly interfere with a competitor's business. SBC would be criminally liable if they tried to prioritize the traffic of their competitors.
Vonage should just charge SBC a "termination" fee if their customers call vonage. In the end with everyone switching to VOIP anyway, it'll just result in the classic companies fading out faster.
Cheers,
TdC
While companies like Qwest (Old US-West) are embracing the technology. Qwest's CEO has been vocal about their plans to compete head-to-head against the startup VoIP companies. To put their money where their mouth is, Qwest explicitly agreed to let any VoIP service terminate traffic in the Qwest local markets without paying termination charges. Just the exact opposite of SBC...... Why the 180 degree polar opposite decision by two of the largest telephone companies in the country? IMHO, Qwest is embracing VoIP themselves while SBC is late to the game, again. SBC seems to come up dead last in any data or telephone technology. What else to do but try to slow down all the competitors.
Termination chargges are not all bad, but to try to apply them to VoIP is insane for all the reasons other posters submited.
Termination charges are good for collecting taxes like the universal service fund. That tax ensures that people in rural areas, where it is much more expensive to deliver service, are subsdidized. IMHO, not all that bad of an idea if done within reason.
But the "right" way to charge termination fees is on the "data" pipe that is used to deliver content. NOT on the services on that data pipe. As for SBC wanting to get reimbursed for the cost of calls that they terminate to SBC subscribers..... Doesn't SBC already charge their subscribers a monthly fee? Do they really need to collect money on both ends?
I hope you are enjoying this. Back when it was stylish and in vogue to pile on AT&T with the thoughts of AT&T being the "Big, Bad Monopoly" (though highly government regulated), we had one communications structure - well defined and orchestrated for its time. But of course there were the people served by the Great Telephone Experiment (GTE) that never could get it right. Yes, AT&T had their problems but when my phone was out, problems were fixed the first time out. Now, no one knows what to make of this morass called wireline telecommunications. YOU let the genie out of the bottle and now we have to sort through this mess and the "The $ is King" Federal Clueless Commission just rubber stamps proposals without really using their brains to understand what their decisions mean. I will bet a wooden nickle that these decisions by the FCC are being done to featherbed their pockets for when their time is up at the expense of the users. So, now it is time to direct the frustrations toward the Southern Boys Club and it is well deserved!
No, this isn't specifically a voice over IP to IP idea (though that is the ultimate answer). How the P2P part comes in works like this. End users who have broadband or other high speed connectitivity, and a normal (POTS) phone line (and voice card to connect to it), would sign up for this "service" and run the software. When a VoIP call needs to terminate at some local exchange where such a "customer" is present and idle, the call will be made by connecting to the "termination agent" software that "customer" is running, and the call (local only) is made from that customer's phone line. That customer then gets a credit on their VoIP bill for a percentage of the cost of the call, which can be rolled over to the next month, traded online for goodies, or paid out in cash, depending on what the VoIP company can set up.
This concept, in a store and forward form, was the basis of many earlier networks from FIDO to UUCP. And with direct internet connectivity, many do this now with data calls connecting through an outbound modem. And even in the early 1970's a place I worked at was dynamically rerouting phone calls being placed to other cities via various trunk lines they had to that city (it was unused video trunks at the time) just to avoid the long distance changes (the theory was, why pay the phone company for resources that were not being used, and why not use the resources that are being paid for).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars