Slashdot Mirror
VoIP Services to be Regulated in Canada
jeffcm writes "It seems that the CRTC, Canada's equivalent to the FCC has decided that VoIP pricing and services should be regulated. From The Globe & Mail: "The CRTC confirmed that it has rejected arguments from Bell and Telus that VoIP should be left unregulated like other on-line applications. If their argument had won the day, their competitors say, the incumbent phone companies would have been allowed to limit the number of new entrants by slashing prices in the short term.""
Regardless of the merits of regulating (or not regulationg) VoIP, at the core I'm uncomfortable with the idea of regulating specific types of Internet traffic ... kind of a change from the traditional egalitarian data-cloud "all packets are equal" ideal. I haven't really thought this out, but I just have a bad feeling about it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This regulation is equivalent of a slippery tube child toy such as this
It's harder to get a grip on, much less tax on it.
Kinda confused about this VoIP crap - if a company is offering a service, for a price which involves you having some sort of phone-like device plugged into a socket in your home, then it is a phone, no-matter if it goes through the old phone system, the cell-system, the Internet, a satellite or some sort of magick pixie communication system. If you're talking about some sort of free software that connects to someone's IP directly using your existing net-connection or uses distributed routing or whatever than thats basically instant messaging with some voice-feature, what are you going to regulate? AIM?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It seems pretty obvious to me that shared public resources (physical lines connecting private property together) may need to be regulated to prevent monopolies, while anything that isn't intrinsically limited (multiple protocols over the internet) doesn't need such regulation.
The only reason for the regulation, after all, is to permit competition. Right?
With the VoIP regulation debate, this dichotomy between limited and unlimited resources is often overlooked, when it's actually the only important issue.
The physically shared and limited public connections should be regulated to prevent monopoly. Purely software protocols should be completely immune to regulation.
What does this mean for free services such as Skype, or even voice chat for games and such?
I could be wrong, but a line in the actual article makes it sound like they're reducing Bell and Telus' ability to treat VoIP as a loss-leader, basically making it impossible for other players like Vonage or Shaw to compete. It's not that they're regulating broadly, they're just warning Bell and Telus that they're being watched, and they can't shut out competition but charging $0.50/month for VoIP. Still not ideal, but a lot less terrible than it seems at first.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
It seems like they plan to regulate the pricing by setting a minimum price that the companies must charge. But how will this affect small companies that can legitimately offer a lower rate through better technology, such as, perhaps, Skype?
Where does Skype fit in this environment? It's already working [for me and my buddies]. I doubt the Canadian government will get anywhere on this. The bureaucracy is just too much...and technology is just too fast. We are already operating under "out-dated" telecom laws.
It appears that Bell and Telus (Canadas two largest telphone companies) were against regulation. Is it possible that a lack of regulation would have permitted Telus and Bell to pull some shenannigans with respect to Shaw / Rogers (two cable TV and cable internet providers) VOIP customers attempting to call POTS customers of Telus and Bell?
Also, for those whom compare this to regulating AOL Instant Messenger, the difference, I think, is that you cannot use that sort of client's voice capability to speak to someone using a simple telephone. The entire point of VOIP is that you can.
END COMMUNICATION
This ruling has little to do with technology and more to do with business and competition. Skype, FWD et. al. will still be able to offer their free services (which are actually financed by advertising and other means).
This will allow new companies to start offering value-added, non-PSTN phone service without being shut out by the two current major phone service providers using artifically low prices.
Basically, a Good Thing because competition is good.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Keep those pesky damm old farts out of it.
The CRTC does more damage than good, why do we need a bunch of crusty old farts telling us what is and what isn't good.
The reason for all those extra charges on the phone bill is because the CRTC said the telephone companies could do it.
CRTC is also screwing everybody with regards to TV pricing, Digital services are now conditional access, IE it is now technically possible to subscribe to indvidual channels. However, in the CRTC's infinite wisdom we must buy our TV programming in packages, including being forced to subscribe to the basic services such as CPAC etc.
This is utter tripe, if a TV station is transmitting such garbage that it only has two viewers then why should it still exist, it's a bad business model. The CRTC ensure that the crap services stay alive by forcing everybody to pay for it.
Why can't I just subscribe to the channels I want, it would only be about ten channels from the billion channel universe, if people had this kind of choice then a lot of the garbage channels and shows would be gone.
Goodbye VOIP, it was nice knowing you, once the CRTC grab hold of it it won't be worth having.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Also, new content rules will require that at least 40% of all conversation must have Canadian Content.
So no more yakking about last night's Desparate Housewives.
The first bunch of X-Files years are okay though...they were created in Canada.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
Um .... and what happens when somebody comes along who can charge less than the minimum price and still make a profit? Their competition is good for the consumer, but will be outlawed. Basically, this is anti-consumer and pro-producer legislation. The Canadian legislature is contemplating screwing the Canadian citizen. But why should that surprise anybody?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I just got Asterisk@Home 1.0 up and running last night, and I was researching Canadian VOIP providers (specifically on Vancouver Island). I found, to my surprise that almost all of them support MGCP and not SIP.
Apparently, Asteriks works great with SIP, but is a real beast with MGCP...
So personally I hope that this regulation brings in smaller players who support SIP and will allow me to hook up a local VOIP connection in Victoria...
As an aside - are there any Canadian (preferably in B.C.) users of Asterisk out there who are running a good VOIP setup? If so, what provider do you use?
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
The scale of regulating VOIP is magnamanous
RTFA...
The CRTC, with their infinite wisdom, only want to price regulate the incumbent phone companies to prevent them from squashing competition from smaller players.
The issue I see with this is that those "other players" are basically huge multi billion dollar cable companies. Don't kid yourself, the CRTC WANTS to see Bell and Telus loose a good chunck of their business and then they might lift their regulation stronghold.
Personally I think it's not a good idea to regulate any form of Internet based technology for the sake of innovation but hey I'm sure those so called governmental experts over at the CRTC knows better...
Those who support regulation of VoIP often say that interaction with POTS as the reason why regulation is warranted. On that line of thinking, if some company created a VoIP system that does not interact with POTS, should it still be subject to regulation? Likewise, if POTS should become obsolete an be replaced by VoIP systems, would regulation still be justified?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
|/usr/games/fortune
As a Canadian I can assure you I have no love loss for the CRTC. They have screwed up more technology related businesses then Bill Gates.
What I find interesting is their reasoning for their ruling. To keep the big guys in check so they don't squash the lil' guys with their legislated monopolies. WTF!
What about Microsoft Canada or Union Energy (DUKE Energy) or any number of legislated monopolies that the Canadian government has allowed for decades and done NOTHING about let alone regulate them to protect consumers.
Seems to me that the CRTC is selectively posturing and beating their ancient chests more for the politicans then the consumer.
Oh and enough with this 911 bullshit as a means to limit VOIP. why can't I have the choice of a "911 button" for $3.0 a month and get my telephone services anywhere I like. No that would be giving Canadian consumers a real choice.
Regulation, at least in it's early stages, can often benefit an industry and thereby its' consumers. In this particular case the government intends to thwart the wholesale takeover of VoIP as a public service by the dominant telcos.
If we admit that VoIP is the future of telephonic communication then we must also agree that entrenched companies offering what is, to the layman, the exact same service, will undoubtedly slash prices to gain penetration until the market is saturated and then begin hiking prices back up to profitability.
Startups and smaller companies that are relatively late to market will be unable to compete with telcos who can comfortably make VoIP a loss leader until such time they see fit.
Regardless of the motive, anything that allows fresh, new companies to deliver fresh, new services instead of aging behemoths like the Bells is, IMHO, a Good Thing (TM).
-- Religion is not an exact science
I perceive this to be anti-competitive as well. The major two phone companies couldn't offer "artificially low" prices forever. And now they don't have to.
What if a company offers POTS connection through a switchboard/extension type system - instead of you actually getting a real phone number, you get an extension number. People call a main number for that VoIP company and then enter the extension - is that technically regulatable? Not sure how it would work for dialling out...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Yes, but the phone companies would cover it long enough to drive all the other companies out of the business then drive prices sky high.
Sure, they're picking our packets, but you guys are the ones who will soon need a national ID RFID card soon to buy, sell, trade, and restrict your movements.
They're regulating the service quality of telephony, an essential service upon which Canadian society depends. If they don't, VoIP will displace more reliable circuits with unreliable ones. And then catastrophe will occur when people find out just how unreliable is their unregulated service.
There are laws against fraud, which phishing and 419 scams (for example) violate. Those laws don't regulate "the Internet" per se - they regulate the transactions, which use the Internet to reach victims. The Internet isn't a grand loophole for all kinds of communication abuse. Or else we're doomed.
--
make install -not war
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/62949
Over-regulation is bad, but so is under-regulation. Think about it - not only are you behind, you're falling further behind every month.This is just another reason to realize the independance of Québec. Stupid laws from federal govs!
A large portion of their customers can switch to VOIP which is dangerous to these phone companies. Now, with the price safely stabalized, the major phone companies don't have to worry about a VOIP price war pulling their regular paying customers away to a lower margin service.
OTOH, I imagine that there will still be substantial competition though on services other than price (depending on whether VOIP prices get adjusted for inflation or not). My opinion is just that this regulation isn't beneficial long term though the harm is probably mild. Another concern to consider is that now that regulation on VOIP has been accepted, we may see further regulations that will harm competition much more than this price floor does.
Think of it along the same lines as Walmart.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
I personally think voip is overpriced when compared to pots IF you do not make a lot of long distance calls. Most of my calls are in my area code. I looked over voip and it costs about the same as pots in this regard (maybe a saving of 5 - 10 bucks tops).
I was surprised when voip first came out and you see prices like 29.99 - 34.99 etc. I thought wtf, these companies are in a sense piggy backing on other companies providing high speed to you.
Vonage and them are just providing a termination service. So could say bell or rogers sell dsl + voip for say 10 bucks more. And not at a loss but actually make a profit from it? Well, bell might not want to but I could see rogers being interested. I read some US cable isps are intergrating voip connectivity in their cable modems.
Also, what we are really paying for is the relay from ip to pots. Where is the money for companies like vonage once everyone is on voip?
I have no love for the CRTC at the best of times, but this decision was welcomed by the smaller players like Shaw, Vonnage, etc. because it allows them to enter the market with a competitive price structure and not worry that the incumbent carriers (Telus or Bell) would swoop in and offer similar service at a fraction of the cost. In essence, killing off the competition with artificially low priced service.
Shaw just recently began offering their VoIP service in Calgary and Edmonton at $55/month for unlimited local and North American long distance combined with voicemail, caller ID, call waiting, 3 way calling, and call forwarding it is a fantastic bargain compared to Telus. Without this ruling Telus could leverage their infrastructure and financial base to undercut Shaw and force them into a price war that Shaw or any other VoIP provider could not maintain in the long run.
Telus and Bell will still be able to compete, but it means that they will have to submit their pricing structure to the CRTC for approval. A lot of the rationale for the decision comes from the CRTC mandate to find a regulatory format that would open the local service to real competition, something that has eluded them for years, and VoIP appears to be the only cost effective way this will be achieved.
The CRTC is the reason: -i pay 6,95$ "system access fees" EXTRA from my cell package. And they don't advertise that fee simply because CRTC doesn't ask them to. -why we're stuck with CPAC (par"liar"ment channel) APTN (Aboriginal chan). -That we have to choose à least 50% canadian content channels on cable packages. -THAT THE SUPERBOWL IS STUCK WITH VERY BAD CANADIAN ADS. -That XM and Sirius are taking soo long to get legally around (Announcements about this coming this week!) -At least 50% canadian content on radio, in Quebec add this to 65% french speaking content, most radios suck around here and the smallest American signal is welcome. I'm even starting to like that rock station owned by Clear channel
The Slashdot cover story gets it wrong. The CRTC is not regulating all VoIP providers. It is regulating Incumbent telephone companies.
There are two types of local phone companies. Incumbents were given legal monopolies until recently, with Canada following the USA in opening up competition. So Bell Canada, Aliant, Telus and Sasktel are Incumbents in Canada. They all have much more than a 50% market share. This is generally accepted as giving them monopoly power -- the ability to set prices in a manner that no competitor can equal.
All other telephone companies are Competitive. They are startups, or at least new to the phone business. In the USA, the term of art is CLEC, and they range from big cable companies down to one-man shops. (I personally know some of the latter.) They have no market power to speak of. Vonage is not a phone company, at least under US rules, but it does provide something resembling local phone service. (Technically it's reselling the services of other CLECs, such as Focal and Paetec.)
The CRTC decided (it's not formally out yet) that Incumbent local phone companies, whose prices are regulated because they have monopoly power, cannot offer VoIP services at unregulated prices. They can't offer cut-rate service that puts their competitors out of business (remember John D. Rockefeller -- sell cheap until the competitor is gone, then raise the price big time). EVERYBODY ELSE can do as they please. Shaw, Rogers, Vonage, Broadvoice, Yukon Dave's Trading Post and Telephone Service Company -- they can offer VoIP withut price regulation.
The CRTC is doing a far better job than the US FCC has been doing over the past few years. This decision is quite reasonable.
You're an idiot.
If I create an application that allows me to engage in voice communications with another person on the Internet, such an application would probably not fall under the authority of telco regulations. If that is the case, then why should attaching a phone-like device to such an application suddenly make it subject to regulation?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
We need to move beyond VoIP to something that escapes the legacy of the old dialed phone system. That something would be like VoIP, but instead of using phone numbers in the usual way, you use IP addresses and communicate directly. Of course we would not literally use IP addresses to "dial" who we want to speak to; we'd use domain names. You get a domain name, or subdomain name, or whatever. Get a registered domain name, or just a subdomain from some dynamic IP service. And of course it should have strong encryption by default with full support of authentication keys so you know you aren't speaking to the man in the middle instead (if you have the public key of who you want to speak to, or the public key of someone who has signed their key).
The process of finding someone would basically be DNS. By adding a way to get the port number through there as well, there would not need to be a specific port associated with this (just some way for DNS to know what you are getting the port number for).
Of course we'll need to find some ways to block VoIP spam.
Existing VoIP would be used for access to those who only have legacy phone service. But the idea is to phase that out.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Then the "unfair" price will be adjusted downwards. The whole point of the regulation is to prevent what is known in other industries as "dumping", i.e. using size and profitability in other (usually monopolized) markets to outlast a smaller, specialized competitor in a niche market by writing off the losses in this small market which the competitor cannot afford to. In other words: to stop an anti-competetive and thus subversive to capitalism practice.
This has been going on in other industries (RAM memory, CDs, vitamins etc) and the various governments (some of them anything but socialist) slap this type of activity down quite rightfully.
My personal view on fixing this permanently is a globally enforced (via progressive taxation) limit on the size a company can grow to, thus forcing ongoing competition and avoiding this issue alltogether. But I realize its not likely to happen that way, so every government is left to come up with their own method of playing anti-monopolistic whack-a-mole as capitalism is moving more and more into oligarcho-corporatism despite these haphazard efforts.
You are probably right, although I do understand the motivation of the CTRC. The effectivenes of this regulation will depend how well does CRTC react to market conditions by adjusting the rules. There are also other elements in this such as 911 call provisions, something VOIP services are notorioulsy deficient at and which already resulted in deaths.
VOIP should still have a lot of room to move on prices, even though you can currently get VOIP for $10/month with 500 minutes from Comwave.net.
w s/1076676942066_12/
To compare apple to apples, Shaw's $55 service is Vonage's $40 or Comwave's $30.
So we already have healthy competition.
Unless you set the minimum to something less than $10, how will this new regulation benefit Canadians if you force companies to raise that price?
Pigs get slaughter, whores get...
Telus is a legal monopoly owning all Yellow pages advertising and if not for competition to the east it would own all Canadian telecom.
"The phone companies told the CRTC last fall during VoIP hearings that more competition and less regulation would be good for consumers and the industry"
Your going to tell me that telephone companies want competition? Come on off it!
The only option to Telus is a reconnect service costing $80/month.
That's more like the competition they are seeking.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There needs to be regulation all right:
[warning you are entering a rant area]
Time to slaughter the pigs and make some room for the little guy, but before this can happen the Canadian political landscape needs a major facelift. Heck we still do everything in the name of "The Crown - Queen of England".
You have to go no further than Adrian Clarkson, (the Queen's rep.) who has a law that she can't be audited for all that wasted money.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe
How ridiculous is that? Lets see something like that fly south of the border.
Trouble with this proposal is that it stinks of skulduggery.
Politics, thanks to the Sponsorship Scandal and many other boondoggles are not trustworthy here in Canada.
Big companies will continue to marionette our government with their sneaky sleazeball tactics.
Meanwhile the Media, owned by the later, will continue to spoon feed the passive, apathetic public with tidings of good joy.
Oh and lets not forget that this bureaucracy comes at a price!
Time to raise taxes from 50% to 60? How many more ways can we tax a dollar?
Until our government becomes an entity of sincere interest for the benefits of its people, with a system of promoting true leaders into the voting arena, will I believe that there is any good to come of said regulation.
And who's gonna ask me for my 'national ID RFID' card? Sheriff Andy?
You're the ones with a national police.
Funny you should bring this up! Last night I got together with some of my neighbors. Over coffee we all chatted about what we think is a decent price for broadband. Barbara, from next door... her husband lost his job last month so she said their limit right now is about $19. I'm doing alright, so I said $50's fine as far as I'm concerned. Big Chuck from across the street just sold his land upstate -- he's loaded now and said he doesn't care much about fifty bucks here or there and offered to pay anything below $130.
:-)
After hours of deliberation, and four pots of coffee, we finally reached a consensus. Here's what we decided:
$34.50! !!
Awesome, huh!! Were were jazzed and all convinced this was a fair price for everybody. But right as we were about to call up our congressmen the dog started barking and my son Jake popped in the front door from college. We told him about our broadband conversation and asked him what he thought. He said he badly wanted broadband, but was flat broke and could only afford $11.75 a month.
His announcement astonished us all. There were heavy sighs followed by several minutes of mournful silence. Sally actually started to choke up and had to go into the kitchen to reclaim herself.
But just as Chuck was reaching for his coat, Sally dashed back into the room with a huge smile and announced she had come up with a wonderful idea! She said, "why not make broadband $11.75?!"
Hooray! There were cheers and high-fives, and glasses were raised high into the air... We had done it! We had arrived at a price all of us could afford, even poor Jake from college!
Gushing tears of joy, I hugged my son, smiled at all my happy friends in the room, then picked up the phone and dialed my congressman.
>> Canadians seem fine with their government picking their pockets
>> Would never happen here in the USA anyway
Because it's just too hard to pick pockets when you're holding hands with Saudi royalty?
http://request-header.info
Then the "unfair" price will be adjusted downwards.
You are very optimistic concerning the operation of government. If I told you that companies don't work very well and are terribly inefficient, would you believe me? For all the same reasons, governments don't work very well either.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The whole point of the regulation is to prevent what is known in other industries as "dumping", i.e. using size and profitability in other (usually monopolized) markets to outlast a smaller, specialized competitor in a niche market by writing off the losses in this small market which the competitor cannot afford to.
Back in reality, it turns out that companies that try to maintain a monopoly in this manner (predatory pricing) usually never make money on this tactic. It costs them more to maintain their monopoly than they can ever recoup through higher prices. Let's say that they lower their prices by ten cents for a year, and drive somebody out of the business. In order to make back that money, they need to raise their prices by ten cents over their original monopoly price. But the party that they put out of business went into business precisely because they saw a way to suck off excess profits by competing with the monopoly. Now the market price is ten cents higher, and the profits are even more attractive to a new entrant. So somebody else goes into the business, and the monopoly can't even go back to their old price. They have to go back to the old "lose ten cents per" price, because that's what's necessary to drive the competition out of business.
Do you see? You have been taught something which is not true. Predatory pricing doesn't work the way you've been taught. Oh, I'm not saying that companies never do it. I'm just saying that it's not profitable for them to do so.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
No I am not. However this particular piece of CRTC activity is of minor impact on the industry and affects only the two major incumbant telcos. It also makes provisions for other more important stuff such as 911 call handling, lack of which already resulted in lost lives. As I said, I personally believe that the measures of this sort are too weak and require micro-managment on the part of regulators (and thus expose the process to inefficiency and mismanagment) but it appears that anything more radical is not in the cards anywhere. So we are left to choose between well-meaning but bumbling bureaucrats at CRTC or the so called "unfethered free market" with its apparent state of equillibrium being an all-poweful oligarchy. At least the bureaucrats have some minor modicum of accountability to the voters.
important stuff such as 911 call handling, lack of which already resulted in lost lives.
.... you have to do nothing. If you try to regulate corporations (besides respecting property and the truth), you screw up this mechanism and make the world a worse place.
Ask around for 911 horror stories. There are PLENTY of times when 911 service doesn't work. Example: when my friend down the road from me nearly cut his thumb off with a chop saw, he ran into the house and called 911. No answer! So he called his secretary, whom he knew would be available to call the hospital for him.
And this has nothing to do with VOIP.
its apparent state of equilibrium being an all-poweful oligarchy.
Honestly, where do you people get this idea from? Companies have a natural size. Sometimes it's big. Sometimes it's small. Parroting the standard leftist line about "corporate oligarchies" just makes you look gullible and foolish.
At least the bureaucrats have some minor modicum of accountability to the voters.
Corporations have to be profitable. Those which cannot convince customers to buy their product will go out of business. If a company has a track record of pleasing people, it will take a while for them to run out of money. That is exactly what you want to happen and in order to make that happen
So, yes, I'm suggesting that immediate deregulation of the telecom market would be an improvement, even if the regulators had a clue and regulated better.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This is a common mis-conception. It would be true if the markets truly operated as Adam Smith envisioned. But they dont. In a true, "efficient", market, the well-informed and educated (ha!) consumers would always choose based on price/performance ratio and barriers to market entry would be insignificant. Unfortunately, consumers can be successfully bamboozled with brain-washing tactics such as "branding" and can be locked in into vendor-specific solutions which increase cost of opting out. Thus a large, predatory company can successfully establish a locked-in market and create excessive barriers to entry for small competitors as well as discourage consumers from opting out if it is given enough time to exclusively control and manipulate that market segment.
Let's say that they lower their prices by ten cents for a year, and drive somebody out of the business. In order to make back that money, they need to raise their prices by ten cents over their original monopoly price. But the party that they put out of business went into business precisely because they saw a way to suck off excess profits by competing with the monopoly. Now the market price is ten cents higher, and the profits are even more attractive to a new entrant. So somebody else goes into the business, and the monopoly can't even go back to their old price. They have to go back to the old "lose ten cents per" price, because that's what's necessary to drive the competition out of business.
See above. Once the market is locked into their proprietary technology, all users have their IP phone numbers listed in a company specific web/email/phone/fax combo pages, the company name is synonimous in the minds of uneducated and uninformed with "IP telephony" a small newcomer has to mount a massive uphill battle even with superior pricing and product. This is the true mechanism behind the monopolization, not mere price dumping. Price dumping is only a component (but a critical one) in multi-pronged attack to monopolize a market. The strategy is never 100% successful but it allows for marginalization of all competitors who cannot afford such battle. For practical example on a grand scale see under Microsoft.
Predatory pricing doesn't work the way you've been taught. Oh, I'm not saying that companies never do it. I'm just saying that it's not profitable for them to do so.
This is not a question of what I have been taught. It is based on observation of the behaviour of companies in the last 200 years. Simply put, a simplistic market theory falls short in accounting for a miriad of real-life conditions, most of them outside economics, which conspire to upset the "efficiency" of the free market and result in a natural predisposition to form large-scale monopolies/oligarchies. This happens before governments get involved with their (sometimes well meaning, sometimes not) meddling.
I suspect this will not affect IP-only voice communications, but only services that involve voice-to-IP gateways.
I still am not convinced it's the right thing to do, but I think it's probably fairly harmless and I can understand why they are doing it.
Are you suggesting that this is a reason to not regulate 911 service? To allow some providers to route to, say, a veterinary clinic when you dial 911? I am not sure what are you proposing.
Honestly, where do you people get this idea from
Observation coupled with logical reasoning. In my reply to your other post I indicated several mechanisms by which these things happen. There are many many more. Simply put, in an "efficient" free market, you would be right. But unfortunately, the markets (even with no government interference) are far from efficient. Consumers fall far short of being "educated and informed" as the theory demands and make irrational decisions en-masse. Companies are able to control the flow of information to the buyers. There are physical limitations of certain segments of the markets which result in naturally forming "choke points" controlled by few individuals and used as launching pads to control of much larger segments in other areas, and so on.
Let me give you just one (exaggerated to emphasize the point) example: A town in a valley can only be accessed by a singular road or air. A company owns the road and demands arbitrary toll, just short of the cost of air travel. In theory the citizens of the city have a free-market choice but in practice the only option left is to abandon their property (and let it devalue to $0) and leave or put up with the predation. The owner of the road has the ability to control demand by adjusting his price just to the breaking point and is also in a position to virtually tax all of the industries in town since they all depend on the access road to some degree. The demand in this case is unable to produce competition because the barrier to entry is made very very steep by physcial (i.e. outside the market) condition. This example (although exaggerated) is actually what happens in practice with the toll roads in places where only one feasible path to build them is available. This type of restriction of the market occurs in many, many places and in so many forms that it is beyond me why people claiming to believe in "free market" fail to see these obvious problems with the application of the abstract theory to real life.
Corporations have to be profitable. Those which cannot convince customers to buy their product will go out of business.
Again, an assumption. In practice this reads: "those which cannot make the consumer buy their product will go out of business".
There is nothing but wishful thinking involved in the assumption that companies will restrict themselves to pleading with consumers and attempting to satisfy their every whim. Alternate, easier to implement strategies of monopolization, vendor-lock-in, branding, brain-washing, media saturation etc etc exist to make life easier for the CEOs. This of course in addition to physical conditions which make some monopolies downright inevietable, such as inability to run competing wiring in a city or a requirement to own certain unique real estate in order to enter the market.
So the CRTC has been convinced that VOIP should be regulated.
By Rogers, the dominant Cable company (and thus data supplier).
Since Rogers sells the data pipe, what is the additional "surcharge" needed to support VOIP? Yes, the sale/rental of the converter.
Now, Bell has been told (by the CRTC) that they can't just sell you the VOIP adaptor.
Because... that would hurt Rogers business.
Its a big win by Rogers. Makes them a "Bell" in that they are protected now too.
What IS the value of VOIP (pricing). Why is is NOT a few pennies a month, to support some QOS infrastructure? I pay Rogers for 60GB of traffic a month (used to be unlimited) -- why can't I use that for voice communications? 3 hours of talk a day, compressed, would be 30MB of traffic. Just data.
Is there another reason why Rogers is concerned about WHAT the data is? Oh, yeah, I remember... they are a phone company too (cell phones). So, VOIP would be a great way to charge a LOT more for that 30MB per day.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
So the market needs to be regulated since otherwise price wars will lead to a monopoly? Is there any evidence of this ever happening? As far as I can see, the monopolies of this world are either due to government regulation (Government phone and power companies, Swedish alcohol and gambling monopoly), expensive infrastructure (US phone and power companies), customer lock-in (Microsoft) or a truly superiour product (Google).
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
If you sell it to the general public as a "Phone" they have certain expectations about what a "Phone" and "phone-service" provide.
If you're selling your magic VoIP "Phone", and I buy it as a Telephone Replacement, I expect other people (including those with regular telephones) to be able to call me, and I expect to be able to call people with regular telephones, and I expect to be able to dial 911 and get help if I need it. I also expect it to work when the power is out.
So you're either going to be forced to provide those services, or you're not going to be allowed to sell it as a phone replacement. It's really that simple.
This doesn't come as a big surprise from our communist neighbors.
nope, he's actually completely right
nice arguement though...idiot
RAM memory, CDs, vitamins etc
Ahem, I think you meant "RAM memory, CD discs, and V Vitamins."
The CRTC is the reason: -i pay 6,95$ "system access fees" EXTRA from my cell package.
Since you clearly believe everything that a salesman tells you, I have a bridge spanning the Burrard Inlet that I'm not using that you may be interested in. I'm asking $1000, which is a huge bargain because you could put a toll booth at each end and charge people $10.00 to drive on it - you'll make your money back in less than a year.