Slashdot Mirror
FCC Fines Company for Blocking Access to VoIP
peg0cjs writes "According to PCPro, the FCC has handed out a $15,000 fine to Madison River Communications Corp for blocking access to VoIP calls. The action is seen as a warning to other telcos not to prevent the growth of VoIP over their networks. The complaint was made to the FCC by two companies Vonage Holdings and Nuvio, which specialise in VoIP services. It appears that Vonage CEO Jeffrey Citron was willing to act on his earlier tirade about VoIP blocking." From the article: "The action is seen as a warning to other telcos not to prevent the growth of VoIP over their networks. Many of these companies see VoIP as a threat to their landline revenues as calls made over the internet can be made to anywhere in the world for the price of a local call."
Is something like me getting a $10 parking ticket, annoying but hardly worth acting on beyond mailing the puppy in...though I suppose the command to change policy as such will have an effect...
...in bed
But I thought we hate the FCC! I just don't know what to believe anymore!
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
So, can I use this precedence to have them unblock port 25 and 80 so I can run my mail and web server without any problems?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Good to see the FCC actually doing something that gives consumers choice. Now only if we could get them to drop the stupid broadcast flag.
IANAL, but I assume the fine goes way up from there, right? If it cuts into the telco's bottom line so much $15,000 isn't a big price to pay to block it.
Thanks!
In my next postings I will include encoded voice messages as a series of ASCII tokens.
Better not mod them down, or you'll be fined for impeding competition...
(and yes, this is not meant seriously)
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Just something I've been wondering. Where does all of this money from fines go to? Janet Jackson netted the FCC some pretty decent change, so what happened to it?
Why?
I am limited in my bandwidth from my provider. I can do whatever I want with that bandwidth, providing it's within the law and the agreement that I signed when I became a customer of my ISP.
If I want high quality lower compressed telephone calls, and I'm not breaking any agreements, then i should be able to do that.
I pay for this bandwidth, it's better that I make a call and use my bandwidth than become one of the many who are spending bandwidth trading kiddie porn.
I for one am sick of corps trying to preserve dieing business models by abusing existing power structures.
It will be interesting to see what will become of information infrastructure in this country in the next few years. IBM v Microsoft of the early 21st century is going to be Cable v. Telephone. Where it goes depends on the rules of the game. This decision firmly establishes that network transparency won't be sacrificed in the fray.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
The smart ones throttle back the quality of the connection. Thanks to the bursty nature of the internet, they can get away with making the quality total shit for 3rd party VoIP providers, while allcocating the necessary bandwidth and priority to their own VoIP services.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
It's a no brainer that voIP is where things are going to end up. The simple solution is for the telco's to jump on that poney and ride it to the bank. The R&D is already done, the equipment prices have come down. While I don't have any figured to work with, I'm sure the return on investment if they plan correctly can't be that bad.
It's like the US post office issue, e-mail is causing them to loose money. Simple solution. USPS internet kiosks where you pay for time to use their system to access your e-mail. Those that don't have laptops/handhelds but have $1 for 30min of time would jump on it. The market is there, just have to have the right bait to real them in. Problem is that telco's like the USPS have been doing things the same way for so long, change is a very painfull process. Welp, take a pain pill and get moving you corporate lackies.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
Sounds like a small fish in the pond. A 15K fine is definitely going to make them pay attention.
And it's going to make the big players sit up and take notice.
Think of this more as a "warning shot across the bow" than a slap on the wrist.
Its a move in the right direction, but to the bigger telcos, $15,000 isn't that big of a hit. Especially when doing something blatantly unethical.
"The action is seen as a warning to other telcos not to prevent the growth of VoIP over their networks" Does this count as a dupe or will it need to read that quote a third time?
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
I don't agree. It's the intent that's important. They weren't helping anyone but themselves. You pay the telco to provide you with service.
If they were given the right to block it, you can just switch to another provider right? Well what happens when that provider blocks you out? Eventually you'd get locked out. After that they'd offer to open that port for you if you requested it, for a price....
The FCC should fine this company US$15,000 per blocked call and the fine should attract interest at current rates. If this company has pockets as deep as those of M$, I suggest going further and holding the executives to account. I hope I am not being too "right wing" or extremist.
$15,000 is hardly a significant threat to a telco, it's more like a "warning ticket" given to a speeder that the cop is good buddies with.
When I think of the fines imposed on Howard Stern, it convinces me that they're not all that serious about limiting challenges to VOIP.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Robert X. Cringely
The result from that. Companies like Vonage and Packet8 are crippled and it's legal too.
Specks
Batteries not included
Commenting on the case the FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said, `the industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation.` He also gave a warning that the FCC will not allow companies to stifle innovation saying that the Commission `acted swiftly to ensure that Internet voice service remains a viable option for consumers`. I think that line might be brought up in the future...can you say broadcast flag?
We've seen many dupes lately here on slashdot, so this is a welcome non-dupe, however, anyone else find it weird that in such a short summary there is essentially a dupe of the sentences from the article?
"According to PCPro, the FCC has handed out a $15,000 fine to Madison River Communications Corp for blocking access to VoIP calls. The action is seen as a warning to other telcos not to prevent the growth of VoIP over their networks. The complaint was made to the FCC by two companies Vonage Holdings and Nuvia, which specialise in VoIP services. It appears that Vonage CEO Jeffrey Citron was willing to act on his earlier tirade about VoIP blocking." From the article: "The action is seen as a warning to other telcos not to prevent the growth of VoIP over their networks. Many of these companies see VoIP as a threat to their landline revenues as calls made over the internet can be made to anywhere in the world for the price of a local call."
I understand that ATT&T has pretty much abandoned circuit switching. Hasn't it already written off its entire circuit-switched physical plant?
This FCC decision lets ILECs know they dare not interfere with VOIP.
Quo Vadis?
When will the last circuit switched call in America be made? What will become of all that infrastructure? Or are reports of its death highly exaggerated?
Insert witty sig here.
The FCC basically claims that Full Interenet access has been deteremined to include VoIP, so Madison was committing fraud.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The Quality of Service server is in your home, not running at your ISP. It pushes up the priority on data sent and requested from your home, so if you're downloading something it won't make your phone sound like shit.
My girlfriend moved into a swanky building with broadband pre-installed.
One day, she can't send email anymore via an external server set up to allow relay after POP authentication. Verizon has blocked all outgoing SMTP because most of their users have become spam-spewing zombies. It was easier for them to do this rather than turn off individuals.
Seriously, can my girlfriend complain to the FCC about this? Or, because email isn't as easily monetized a service as VOIP, they simply won't care?
jh
But you, the consumer, are paying for that bandwidth. As a customer of Vonage, I can tell you that it's not even that much - 90kbps is the HIGHEST quality setting. If I'm paying the cable / telephone / ISP company for a certain amount of bandwidth, I should be able to use that bandwidth as I see fit, as long as it conforms with the customer agreement. As yet, I have not seen an agreement that says "I will not use VoIP services on this connection."
You work for a phone company, I bet. or maybe a cable company...
This was done specifically to block competition.
Free Mac Mini
Then there's the issue with overseas service. The undersea cables are supported with revenue from phone calls, and bandwidth is limited. Financing cables with the "all you can eat" Internet model is going to be interesting.
I don't see any way this can be good for local telcos, and maybe not for overseas carriers either. It may be time to sell any shares you own.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
:P I'm actually guessing Vonage is completely down since multiple people can't ping them right now and my phone just gives me a busy tone when I dial a number. This is great, now I get to rely on Comcast, a Netgear Router, VOIP adapter, and vonage to be able to make a phone call....
I think control of VoIP is outside the mandate of the FCC.
New companies that offer VoIP are not covered by the FCC. These are companyies are "common carriers" and protected by there laws.
You either have FCC regulation and the protection of the "common carriers" laws or your on your own. For example is you are VoIP company and not considered a "common carrier" then If someone uses VoIP for criminal reasons you could be considered part of the facilitator. Common Carrier status protects a carrier from legal liability for what it transports.
The legal liability of allowing someone who is 'legal liability' for what it transports to use your lines from which you are protected via the common carrier status has interesting consequences. For example: if a 3rd party VoIP provider (who is not regulated and is not Common Carrier) allows a kidnapper to make a ransom demand to through its VoIP line then over a common carrier lines then who is responsible?
Just becuase a company is protected by the Common Carrier status does not mean it should extend to the 3rd party VoIP provider who use there lines.
An very interesting legal point if the FCC is trying to make the Common Carriers accept 3rd party VoIP calls.
Allowing 3rd party VoIP providers to use Common Carrier lines puts unacceptable risk or damage upon the Common Carrier and hence they should be legally allowed refuse service to such parties.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
This blocked me from sending emails tagged as originating from my domain name.
I voted with my feet and am now a happy customer of Sonic.net (based in Santa Rosa, but serving the Greater Bay Area).
But I am still pissed off about Earthlink blocking traffic to destination port 25 (SMTP) and would enjoy it if a regulatory agency fined them.
$15000 seems like a joke, though.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
I'm a vonage user, after logging into the website I'm greeted with this, coincidence?:
Service Announcements
Customers may be experiencing an issue with receiving inbound calls and placing outbound calls due to a network issue. This problem is also impacting availability of our web site.
Our engineers are aware of the issue and are working to resolve it as quickly as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
So, do we love the FCC today or do we still hate them?
-ted
I work for a small cable provider. We also offer cablemodem service and phone service, all over the coax network. We make more money *per-customer* on the phone service than anything else.
Vonage isn't available in our area yet, but when it comes, our phone service is absolutely fucked. Vonage is what, $25/month for unlimited calls? We charge that much for 500 minutes of calls per month. And, of course, long distance is extra.
But you know what? I don't care. Vonage and it's ilk are GOOD THINGS. There's no reason that all communications systems shouldn't move to IP-based networks. Yeah, it's going to be the end of the "small" service providers, but so what? They're living on borrowed time anyway.
I'm just waiting for high-speed wireless internet to become ubiquitous. Once everyone can snag a couple of megabits out of the air no matter where they are, even the cell phone companies are going to be screwed. Unless, of course, they become wireless internet providers. Which is what they should do, of course.
I think the difference is that when you signed the TOS for your internet connection, part of that consists of some verbage similar to the follow (your exact milage may vary):
I am your httpd god, and thou shalt not have any other httpd gods before me.
Thou shalt keep holy the smtp server that I have provided.
Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor's bandwidth with thine own ftp service.
I think my old cable connection even included the following:
Thou shalt sacrifice thy first born son in my name, as I am mighty, and thou art but a puny mortal before me.
The biggest difference I can see (and IANAL) is that you agreed to have these things blocked when you signed up with your ISP, whereas this is them deciding to do it "behind the scenes" and in such a manner that they are stifling competition. You hosting a website at home doesn't count as competition in the FCC's eyes.
It sucks, yeah, but the difference is that they aren't stiffling innovation here, they're setting terms of what you can host on your local machine. Hosting anything can cause tremendous bandwidth usage, much more so than making a VoIP call. And imagine the uproar if someone was running an open-relay smtp service on an IP that belonged to an ISP...lawyer's would probably need something to clean up with once the shock of how many lucrative lawsuits were available wore off.
I noticed that too...
From the Vonage site:
Customers may be experiencing an issue with receiving inbound calls and placing outbound calls due to a network issue. This problem is also impacting availability of our web site.
Our engineers are aware of the issue and are working to resolve it as quickly as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Kyndar: Exotic Imports, Jewelry, Candles, and Incense http://www.kyndar.com
Instead of embracing the new technology, adopting it, and even selling/profiting from it... they decide to stifle it and bludgeon it with a stick in the hopes that it will die and people won't talk about it anymore.
They need to learn to appropriately respond to what the market wants, not control what they can get.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
I agree. Movie theaters should be required to allow people to bring thier own food. This will drive them to charge fair prices + "convenience" cost.
The abuse of the concession monopoly is one of many reasons I no longer go to the movies.
Phonecompanyisp: Block VOIP, no one is using our phone services anymore.
.0002 each
FCC: Nope can't do that, Won't let ya.
PhoneCompanyISP: Ok, Charge $.0002 per each packet.
PostOffice: Hey give us $.0001 per packet because no one sends regular mail anymore!
User: What!! $18.00 Dial up
$18.00 90,000 packets @
$36.00 total.
(bill used to only be $18.00)
I'm a network engineer and planner for a VoIP provider, and despite years in this business, I have no earthly idea what you're calling a "QoS server".
You are, well, "so very wrong" about what goes on with popular consumer VoIP products like Vonage.
Vonage uses Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for call signalling and service feature delivery. Media Terminal Adaptors (MTAs), often also referred to as Analog Telephone Adaptors (ATAs), adapt analog voice media into Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) media streams which get encapsulated in User Datagram Protocol segments and then finally encapsulated in IP packets.
Which of those protocols provides "QoS" service? None, in Vonage's world anyway. Even if the MTA set a higher DiffServ Code Point or higher IP Precedence in the IP header, the consumer-grade broadband router will ignore it, and most intermediate ISP routers will ignore it too.
The ISPs that pay attention to QoS are likely to rewrite any DSCP or IP Prec setting inbound at their edge, unless contractual agreements state otherwise. You don't let untrusted entities flood your priority queues; it's bad for business.