VoIP Legal Status Worldwide?

Cigarra writes "There was much public debate going on during the last several months here in Paraguay, regarding the 'liberation of Internet,' that is, the lifting of the restriction on ISPs to connect directly to international carriers. Up until this week, they were forced to hire wholesale service from the State run telco, Copaco. During the last month, when the new regulation was almost ready, the real reason supporting the monopoly made it to the headlines: Copaco would fight for the monopoly, fearing VoIP based telephony. Finally, the regulator Conatel resolved today to end the monopoly, but a ruling on VoIP legal status was postponed for 'further study.' I guess this kind of 'problem' arose almost everywhere else in the world, so I ask the international slashdotters crowd: what is VoIP's legal status in your country / state / region? How well did incumbent telcos adapt to it, and overall, just how disruptive was this technology to established operators?"

Comments

In Canada

[Pig Hogger]

Here, in Canada, it is totally free; as there is no single federal telecom monopoly and those are mostly private companies, the issue of monopoly is moot.

Hopefully, this situation will help to drive the Bell Telephone Company of Canada into the ground, which could be sooner than we think as it was not bought by the Ontario Teacher's Fund.

Re:In Canada

[MrNaz]

South Africa had banned VoIP technology until recently. There's lots of information in this 2001 article:

http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2001/0103271307.asp?A=VPN&S=VPN&T=Section&O=SBR

Re:In Canada

[Mantrid]

In theory it is free; in practice (Ontario anyways), Bell is the gate keeper. And they don't really keep their gates fixed up very well, actually the gates are more like doggie doors and you can only fit half a person through per month (then they charge you extra). There are also a few cable companies - they have garage doors, but they might only let one person in at a time. (Fortunately we still have some resellers of DSL to help out, they'll give you a few gates and generally distract the gatekeeper while you get your stuff through...though Bell is on to them and with the help of the CRTC they might just close that "hole")

Re:In Canada

[Idiomatick]

Unfortunate that 'free' VOIP you use is going through your Bell internet lines or a ghetto cableco. I use teksavvy dsl and my voip quality and torrent speeds are crappy/throttled. Why? Because Bell is fucking with my connection once it gets to their backbone even though I'm not buying anything from them at all. I don't see a way we can put the company down if they have control over my internet when I'm not even a customer. Maybe they'll start punitive throttling, hitting people not paying them just because they can. Without the government stepping in there is nothing that could be done aside from building a whole new infrastructure.

Legal vs Allowed

[Renraku]

VoIP is legal here in the United States.

But I don't know how much longer it'll be allowed to live by the ISPs.

We're kind of on a roller coaster ride debate as to whether or not ISPs should be able to decide what data goes over their lines. They want to be able to charge more for certain types of data (and you can bet your ass that data that competes with another wing of their business will be pretty damn expensive).

When Bush was in office, I wouldn't have even blinked in surprise if I were told suddenly the ISPs decided that all YouTube traffic is now set to 14.4k speeds unless you pay more for it, but now that Obama's in office, its actually a debate rather than a eventuality.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[MrNaz]

now that Obama's in office, its actually a debate rather than a eventuality

If you think the big lobby groups are any less powerful just because of a change in party or person in the president's chair then you're deluding yourself.

RIAA will continue to run around like a bull in a china shop, patent trolls will continue to destroy innovation by patent stockpiling and dragnetting, the armed forces will continue to rape and pillage those who are unable to defend themselves and our privacy and freedoms both online and in the real world will continue to be barraged from all sides.

The real enemies of society are the interests represented by the powerful lobby groups. Not some guy sitting in an oval office.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[mellon]

When the only tool you have is demagoguery, every discussion looks like a nail. Or something like that...

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[jonaskoelker]

If you think the big lobby groups are any less powerful just because of a change in party or person in the president's chair then you're deluding yourself.

The real enemies of society are the interests represented by the powerful lobby groups. Not some guy sitting in an oval office.

I seem to recall Obama being in favor of reducing the power and influence of lobbyists on political decisions.

I'm not overly naive, but it might just be possible (maybe!) that you'll (meaning we'll) see some real change.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[californication]

Wow, fresh flame bait. Ok, I'll bite.

The Democratic Primary is not won by popular vote, but by delegates. Not surprisingly, Clinton's popular vote estimate only includes Clinton voters from Michigan, not Obama voters. Clinton lost because she a false sense of security that spawned from nepotism and entitlement. Maybe if she hadn't assumed from the very beginning that the cat was in the bag, she could have won.

Where were your in 2008, when Bush was still in office and the economy really went down the shitter? How many people lost their jobs in 2008, something like 2 million? Yeah, we were just rolling in dough when Bush was in office, he did a great job with the economy.

Ironic that you seem perfectly ok "paying a bit more for it" as long as it's a Republican in office. You bitch about the government picking your pocket, but you'll bend right over for a private company.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[californication]

It's against AT&T wireless' terms of service to use VoIP over a cellular data connection. Of course, just encrypt and connect to a proxy or just setup a VPN and viola, none of AT&T's business.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[palegray.net]

the armed forces will continue to rape and pillage those who are unable to defend themselves

I was with you right up to that point. Speaking as a person who has served in the Navy, with lots of friends in the Army and Marine Corps, I can say with a high degree of confidence that you are an idiot. How's that armchair of yours? Comfy?

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to sound cynical, but the president simply doesn't have the power to do that. The staff that make up the administration serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States of America. The President of the United States of America serves at the pleasure of the powerful lobby groups.

You think you have a democracy. You don't. You have a show that the big interests put on so you think you have a democracy.

Lets see, in 2 or 3 years, if the RIAA or MPAA have been censured in any meaningful way. Lets see if the US foreign policy takes steps to undo some of the harm of the last 8 years. Lets see if the absurd excesses in power grabbing under the guise of fighting terrorism get rolled back.

My money is on Obama slowly becoming Just Another President, and after his brief pause to make people think he's different, just continuing on the same downward spiral. Lobby groups will want him to make people think that they've made a change, which is why they've allowed Obama to pause the downhill slide for a while, so that people's anger levels subside. Once they are lulled again, the slide can begin again for another decade or so, before the next pause.

It's no different in the UK or Australia. We're all being frog boiled, and we're too stupid and have too short memories to see it.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[TehDuffman]

the armed forces will continue to rape and pillage those who are unable to defend themselves

I would have modded you up except for this point. The Armed Forces of the US are like any group, you put a bunch (hundred of thousands) of 18 - 23 year olds in a area with extreme stress and extreme power mistakes happen but... rape and pillage I would say you have no idea what you are talking about and may want to learn/read instead of writing completely ignorant statements.

Also the military establishment before OIF was not pro-invasion, they did the best with the horrible leadership from the civilian leadership at the DOD and above. Had OIF planning been in control of the the military there likely would have actually been an occupation plan and no need for a surge because a higher amount of troops would have already been on deck.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[drinkypoo]

I was with you right up to that point. Speaking as a person who has served in the Navy, with lots of friends in the Army and Marine Corps, I can say with a high degree of confidence that you are an idiot. How's that armchair of yours? Comfy?

I've had to sit and listen to too many soldiers tell me stories about rape to believe your anecdote. They invariably are a story of grief and remorse about how they didn't stop someone else from doing it. When you add to that that the published stats for rape of female military inductees in the Navy is over 25% - while rape statistics are nearly always under-reported, and rape allegations are almost never false although other kinds of abuse are potentially over-reported.

The simple truth is that occupying militaries pretty much always commit rape on a broad scale, and ours is no exception, nor has it ever been. In addition, the use of prostitutes who were forced into the business in response to the devastation of the local economy due to war can only be seen as a kind of rape, and that is very much SOP for all soldiers anywhere, making war in any time and any place.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[Clovis42]

You think you have a democracy.

No, apparenlty you do. We think we have a representative republic.

It's no different in the UK or Australia. We're all being frog boiled, and we're too stupid and have too short memories to see it.

Ya, but at least we are allowed access to guns. We can at least do some pew-pewing before we finally croak.

I agree that lobbyists (ie, big corporations) have way too much power, but it isn't all that bad. Take RIAA, for example. For all the power they have, they keep losing. They've given up on going after individuals now. You can see their grip slipping every day. If it somehow becomes impossible for me to access media via bittorrent one day I'll believe you, but I don't see this happening. For all their complacency, when enough people are affected by something you actually see some change. It is a slow process, but eventually the will of the voters is heard.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[bartwol]

I never served...a fact of which I am not proud.

I fully agree with your point, brief and unexplained though it may be.

The parent's sweeping [mis]characterization of military personnel reflects a kind of bigotry that is common and, in many circles, acceptable here in the U.S. (and elsewhere). And yet, his ugly slur is no more correct than one he might make about African Americans or any other broadly defined population. Alas, such broad sweeping bigotry lives in the hearts of most people, and is only mitigated by their learned sensitivity ("forgiveness") to particular sub-classes.

Anyway, thanks for saying it the way I felt about it.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[oodaloop]

I also served, 7+ years active duty Marine Corps, and I continue to hold the highest admiration of those who serve, in any of the services.

That being said, it is a sad fact that the US has a long history of using the military and the CIA to bully uncooperative countries, overthrow their leaders, establish US friendly dictatorships, and support their campaigns. As individuals, US service members are of the highest caliber and I wouldn't want to work with anyone else. As a group, we get associated with the worst our country does.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[Hatta]

rape allegations are almost never false

How exactly do you determine this? Most rape cases are complete "he said, she said" cases. Given that in 25% of the rape cases where DNA evidence is available the main suspect is exonerated, I'd say your "almost never" is completely wrong. And that's not even counting cases where 1) no DNA evidence is available or 2) consensual sex is followed by a cry of rape.

Re:Legal vs Allowed

[Eternauta3k]

Ya, but at least we are allowed access to guns. We can at least do some pew-pewing before we finally croak

The second ammendment is the most cunning deceit ever made (probably not it's original intention). It keeps people thinking "hey, if things get too bad we can still revolt". Thus, the illusion of having a right takes precedence over actual rights that citizens in other countries have (healthcare or whatever).

Past tense of "arise" is "arose"

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The past tense of "arise" is "arose". Like rice.

Needless to say, the opportunity to make a fortune off of VoIP users is being lost. If you are a mobile operator, you just charge per packet. If you are a telco, you just charge a data traffic fee. If you are a cable operator, you just charge people more to get the channels that they really want by splitting them up into "packages" that contain one good channel and 50 crap channels.

Seriously, who the fuck is watching the Lifetime channel?

Re:Past tense of "arise" is "arose"

[spire3661]

LOTS of women. I know being here on slashdot you might have forgotten the concept that women exist.

Re:Past tense of "arise" is "arose"

[Anonymous Coward]

The past tense of "arise" is "arose". Like rice.

Roce?

In Australia its legal

[jonwil]

And we have regulators who would go after any telco who tried to block it.
In fact, many major ISPs are now offering VoIP as part of your Internet connection

If the government tried to ban VoIP in this country, they wouldn't survive the next election.

Maybe thats the problem for people in countries in Latin America and Africa and elsewhere where telephone and Internet service is controlled by state-run/state-backed monopolies. Maybe the people in these countries need to kick the government out (although that assumes that there is a government running the country and not a military general and an army with orders to shoot anyone who has such unclean thoughts as "lets kick the government out" or "lets fight the state-run telco")

Re:In Australia its legal

[timmarhy]

our monopoly telco which was previously government owned, telstra, would LOVE to block VOIP. they aren't in the VOIP business yet, they are waiting for everyone to invest heavily in it then they will drop conventional landline calls to the same level, decimating the competition.

Re:In Australia its legal

[rdnetto]

In fact, many major ISPs are now offering VoIP as part of your Internet connection.

Quite a few actually give you an incentive to adopt it. E.g. My ISP, iiNet, literally doubled my already generous quota if I bundled VOIP with my connection. That was actually the only reason we got VOIP at first - it was only later that we realised how much cheaper it was.

Also, take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOIP#Legal_Issues.

Re:In Australia its legal

[AHuxley]

Voip is fine in Australia, just select your ISP with great care and read the fine print re excess data costs.
Telstra (big bad Australian "Bell") enjoys offering low capped plans with over use charged at A$150/gb, counting uploads and downloads.
As the joke goes:
"New computer - $1200
Desk for the computer - $250
Bigpond 100Mps 200mb Cable Plan - $39.95
Using your 200mb quota + 2GB extra at $150 a gig doing VoIP - Priceless"

Telstra controls RIMs (Remote Integrated Multiplexer ~ digital loop carrier), toys with exchange rack space and does all it can to contain other ISP's.

Another fun aspect of Voip was this:
http://apcmag.com/bigpond_blocking_voip_on_new_modem.htm

Australia

[MishgoDog]

Completely legal here - in fact, a lot of ISPs use it as a sales tool - they provide cheaper internet if you bundle it with their VoIP service to replace your home phone.

VoIPs becoming fairly widespread these days - many big companies especially are using it, and a growing proportion of home users.

Re:Australia

[Dog-Cow]

Where do you live? In the US, we have number portability.

Australia

[noz]

People have VoIP in Australia with a publically accessible telephone number (inbound and outbound).

But what you're saying reminds me of mobile phone companies offering internet on 3G mobile phone networks but blocking IM clients fearing their exorbident SMS revenues will disappear.

Only in monopoly markets

[jrumney]

In most of the Western world, Governments decided in the 1980's and 1990's that competition was good for the consumer, and government telecommunications monopolies no longer exist. In those countries, VoIP is just seen as a natural evolution of healthy competition, and though individual operators might try to make life difficult for independent VoIP operators, and lobby for regulations to be imposed based on E911 (ie the ability of emergency services to find), there is no government support for banning healthy competition.

In markets where there is still a government backed monopoly, there might be more inclination to protect that monopoly, but ultimately it is not good for the consumer or the overall economy to protect a dying technology and business model.

Re:Only in monopoly markets

[Velska1]

In my native Finland, I was surprised to see how easy it was to break the monopoly that the government monopoly had on long-distance calls both national and international. But then we always had small, local, privately owned phone companies (or co-ops) handle local telephone business (in densely populated areas, that is). We never had a Ma Bell.

Then when the Internet arose, all comers were welcomed to the field, which gave us one of the best connectivity rates in the world (relative to demographic factors like population density). VoIP took phone carriers by surprise in a way, but mobile phones (and the deregulation of that market) had already destroyed their major cash cow, so they were seemingly happy to have more of an excuse to sell broadband lines.

Of course, I am no industry insider, so there may be more than meets the eye there, but I have never heard a complaint about VoIP traffic. P2P sometimes, not VoIP. The local companies are in the mobile business, too, as an alliance (there has been some consolidation, too), and we have had the highest rate of mobile penetration here until recently.

Re:Only in monopoly markets

[drinkypoo]

In markets where there is still a government backed monopoly

It's always either monopoly or oligopoly. The established players lobby for new barriers to make it harder to be a carrier. The right-of-way is generally granted to a single company. The right to use public spectrum is controlled by a government body, and either auctioned or assigned. In other words, the government very much decides which communications carriers can exist. The government always backs the "current state of affairs" unless they are financially (or, I guess, otherwise) induced to change things.

Re:Only in monopoly markets

[tonyray]

Unfortunately, the US has government backed telecommunication monopolies. E911 is a good example of how it works. In most places in the US, E911 is contracted by the counties with the local telephone monopoly. When the FCC decided that VoIP providers had to provide E911 and gave them only 120 days to invent a method for doing that and putting it into place, the telephone monopolies refused to allow the VoIP providers to connect to E911 because they weren't regulated wireline telephone companies. It took court action to call the FCC off; the court stating that the FCC could not impose a regulation that was impossible to meet and order the phone companies to allow the VoIP carriers to connect to E911. However, there are still many areas of the US where the phone companies are still refusing to allow the VoIP carries to connect to E911 services.

Wiretapping is another example. The monopolies get paid to tap phone lines - averaging about $60,000 per tap. The equipment to do this is expensive, so the government gave the money to the monopolies to implement wiretaping capability years ago. However, the FCC says that not only will they not give money to the VoIP carriers to implement wiretaps, the VoIP companies (unlike the monopolies) must do each wiretap for free or face heavy fines.

On the happy side, Congress exempted from regulation anyone providing VoIP as long as their service doesn't connect to the publicly switch telephone network, PSTN. This means that any one with control of their own DNS can setup a SIP server, sign people up to use their server and it will complete calls to anyone else using SIP. This will break the telephone monoplies once enough people have broadband and realize they don't have to pay to have telephone service (except some tiny charge to the guy with the SIP server, or he may just do it for free). I would suggest an open source SIP server project for Windows because more people would be able to operate a Windows based server and that would speed up the whole process. There is an open source project for Linux, OpenSIP, but it is too difficult for the average enthusiest to setup and operate.

How I see this happening is that there are (soft) SIP phones and SIP PBXs that can select the least cost path to complete a call. This allows the user to use the free route when it is available. As more and more calls are completed by the free routes, people will drop the paid VoIP services. The greatest impact of this will be the phone monopolies PSTN and their very restrictive, high priced VoIP services.

New ISPs = new technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of these new internet based communication technologies, that are pretty much 're-inventions' of existing industries, having a hard time setting their foot on the market.

Mainly because the industry they are replacing is too big to struggle with. And the big guys control access to the most important requirement, that is the Internet.

As long as cable companies serve internet, IPTV or P2P TV systems will have a hard time competing. The cable company will simply throttle your IPTV service, or they will roll their own, or just force you to use their existing TV technology.

Your phone line/DSL based ISP will make sure that your VOIP service is unreliable just to promote their 'cheap long distance plan' that comes with their 'high speed internet'.

In order to defeat these kinds of business models, we need independent ISPs. That is ISPs who only provide internet access and nothing else. These ISPs will have to make sure that their job is to improve their internet infrastructure to cater to the ever increasing bandwidth demand.

I personally want to see new companies providing wide area wireless internet access.
Say goodbye to the old, evil, traffic shaping, expensive, non-upgrading, money hungry, power hungry ISPs.

VoIP in Latin America

[Anonymous Coward]

Residential User:
Mexico - Illegal if you don't buy from one of the Telmex concessionaires.
Nicaragua - Illegal. You go to jail for it.
Honduras - Illegal. Jail.
Costa Rica - Illegal. Fine.
Dominican Republic - Illegal. Jail.
Panama - Legal. Do whatever you want.
Colombia - Illegal. They disconnect your Internet line if they catch it.
Venezuela - Legal. Chaves Monopoly.
Brazil - Legal. Plenty of providers.
Argentina - Legal. Plenty of providers.
Chile - Legal. Plenty of providers.

Termination (to leak, connect a VoIP gateway to phone lines or ISDN lines and provide termination to guys like Arbinet):

Mexico: Illegal. Jail.
Nicaragua: Illegal. Fine and Jail.
Costa Rica: Illegal. Fine and Jail.
Honduras: Illegal. Fine and Jail.
Colombia: Illegal. Fine.
Dominican Republic: Illegal. Fine and Jail.
Venezuela: Illegal. Fine and Jail (and some worse stuff...)
Brazil: Illegal. Fine and Jail (They just closed a huge leak there with 12 Cisco 5350s. Guys got fined in 2 million bucks)
Argentina: Legal. You may get problems with your ISP.
Rest: I don't know.

Re:VoIP in Latin America

[acid06]

I'm not sure if by "termination" you really meant "providing termination services for third-parties without a license".
But in Brazil it's perfectly legal to have a VoIP gateway which will route your company internal VoIP systems to the PSTN.

Providing this service for third-parties would require a telecom license, though.

Re:VoIP in Latin America

[johannesg]

I'm utterly amazed that in some countries you can apparently go to jail for using a certain type of telephone...

Re:Illegal in India

[stony3k]

VOIP is not illegal in India since 2008. See this press release for more details.

Deep packet inspection used for blocking VoIP

[yahyamf]

In Dubai in the UAE as well as in most Gulf countries, VoIP is completely illegal, and the state run telcos use DPI technology to block it. This adds about 200ms of latency to *all* packets which the telcos think is an acceptable tradeoff to preserve their monopoly revenue.

Re:Deep packet inspection used for blocking VoIP

[sysstemlord]

The software used for calling from internet to telephone are completely illegal in UAE and some other gulf countries, and they block downloading or connecting to their voip servers, however, it's possible to use voip between two computers, and it's also possible to call someone's phone in emirate from abroad using voip software. In other words, it's allowed as long as it doesn't affect the local mobile carrier.

"wisky tango foxtrot? I've been arrested?"

[i_b_don]

So for those countries that outlaw VoIP, what is the extent of their laws? If I play a game on Steam and it has voice chat as part of the game, will I be thrown in jail? If you play xbox live with the headset on, are you busted? If you use an IM which has voice capability is it illegal to turn that on?

Seriously, how can they make this work and still keep a functioning internet? This just seems like craziness to me.

d

A view of VoIP status in AU

[ivi]

So, in Australia, we have a few serious competitors (eg, MyNetFone),
eg, offering low-cost ATA's (1-off price to buy it of under Au$ 20)
and VoIP service plans (to anyone who knows about them) as low as
Au$ 0 (ie, FREE) each month, ie, pay only for your calls ( Au$ 0.10
for up to 2 hours in each call you make to a normal Australian land-
line; Au$ 0.15 / min for calls to Aussie mobiles); 1 DID no. incl'd.

Retailers offer higher-priced ATA's (even from same VoIP provider),
or did... Most get ATA's directly from MNF at subsidized prices.

An early "visible" if more costly provider - Engine (or similar) -
wanted you to buy an ATA for Au$ 150 or Au$ 99, a while ago, but
have realised the futility of such high prices.

Engine also charged a monthly fee (now, about Au$ 10 / mon) plus
somewhat more for calls.

MyNetFone seems to have been the most creative & versatile, eg,
offering:

- software for Nokia cell phones that enable one to make/receive
    calls either paying (high prices) for cellular privider's data
    or - more recently & economically - use your choice of WiFi
    provider (incuding your own home / office WiFi access-point)
    as the (cheaper) source of data to support your VoIP calls

- support for softphones (theirs & others)

- cheap ATA's, some with routers WiFi and/or modems, ie, a reason-
    able range of ATA brands & models, ususally locked to MyNetFone

- (for business clients) IP-PBX options (see their site for details)

Their low-cost call rates applied (as above), but any cell-pro-
vider's data or other broadband data costs were - as always -
yours to bear, along with them.

--- Skype on a mobile phone or Sony PSP or computer:

Mobile carrier (Hutcheonson?) "3" has offered Skype offers a
GSM-based cellphone with facilitated, built-in Skype features;
you can see it at Skype.com or Three.com.au.

With a SkypePhone in hand (a user who within range of "3"'s
broadband network can talk to any computer or Sony PSP or Skype-
phone based Skype-user... for 4,000 minutes / mon and/or sent
up to 10,000 text messages / month (in Skype text chat mode),
for an incredibly low monthly fee, even if you add-in a fee
for the SkypePhone handset. Of course, it's Skype- (not GSM-)
voice quality. But messages sent via Skype are NOT limited to
160 characters, as SMS chunks are.

Sony's PSP 3002 (AU-version) includes both WiFi & Skype (voice
only; neither SMS (since it's NOT a GSM cellphone) nor Skype
chat-mode text messages can be sent from a PSP).

If you bought a month or (cheaper, per mon) a year Skype "sub-
scription," you get 1 or 3 DID no.'s based in your choice of
any of 30+ countries, as well as 10,000 minutes of talk-time.

So, using such a subscription, you can ring any normal landline
number - in any of the countries on the list (of 32+ lands), etc.

Of course Skype-to-Skype calls & chat messages remain free. :-)

---

In short, enough options, easy for the end-user to setup & main-
tain (ie, if s/he's a bit of a geek).

Caribbean

[masonc]

In the C&W controlled monopoly islands of the english speaking Caribbean, VOIP was always a gray area. Anyone wanting to offer VOIP services required a telco license and C&W would not sell them an internet connection, but they did not block VOIP use by users. The Governments did not have any real stance on the issue as they did not understand it. Eventually, C&W accepted the inevitable and offered their own service, known as NetSpeak, but only to private users and only tied to a hardware device.
There is a large move to VOIP by companies and now I am seeing quasi-governmental pan-caribbean agencies implementing IP PBX installations using Open Source PBX equipment. The last bastion of TDM is the hotels and I think a shift to VOIP is inevitable there also.
The incumbent Telco will likely move to entertainment and content as long distance revenue dwindles and they are stuck with the losses of maintaining low return infrastructure. They are already slimming down operations, laying off staff and becoming a sales driven company rather than an engineering company.
VOIP will remain legal and radically change the Caribbean, telcos will become content providers and TDM will fade into the past.

Re:Illegal in India

[Jane Q. Public]

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." - Mahatma Gandhi

Tell that to the people involved in the Manhattan Project.

Malaysia

[raju1kabir]

Consumers are allowed to buy VoIP equipment and use it as they please. Broadband quality isn't all that great, and latency to the USA (where most providers are homed) is 250+ms, so takeup has not been huge. Skype is popular though, and USB Skype accessories are ubiquitous in computer malls and shops.

Equipment that connects physically to the telephone network requires approval from SIRIM, a regulatory agency. I have seen SIRIM-approved stickers on Digium cards, so in principle they are amenable to that sort of thing. I know of one shop that sells SPA-3000 series devices but I haven't checked whether those are officially approved or just grey-market imports.

A licence is required in order to interconnect with the PSTN and provide services to the public. However, many of the inbound international phone calls I receive here in Malaysia arrive with dubious local caller-ID, so I suspect there are a lot of termination providers doing things on the cheap, which in these parts usually means skipping the licence stuff.

In general, the government's attitude has been open or at least tolerant, and the market is slowly picking up speed. All of the major ISPs offer or plan to offer consumer VoIP service, and a small but growing number of independent operators are starting to reach out to consumers. For large businesses it has been standard practice for years.

One factor slowing the adoption of VoIP has probably been the already-low price for international calls via other means. Wholesale inbound termination is under US$0.01/minute for fixed lines, and around US$0.03/minute for mobiles. The retail cost of phone calls from Malaysia to fixed lines in US/Europe/Australia etc on my mobile is around US$0.04/minute (Digi @ RM0.13-0.18). In most countries you can't even call next door for that price; here I can call the other side of the planet.

Poland

[retsef]

In Poland and EU currently there is no problem with VoIP. There are a lot of companies in EU that support Poland and some Polish companies specialized in Poland. Funny thing is that regular telecommunication companies (like Dialog Telecom -monthly subscription about 10Euro/20USD) sell also their products cheaper via internet wih VOIP (monthly subscription about 2,5Euro/5USD).

In the past polish national telecomunication had monopoly for calls abroad, till 2004 i belive, but nobody respected it.

Lebanon

[welrifai]

In Lebanon, VoIP is actually completely illegal as it circumvents what is in some cases, a state run monopoly, and in other cases, a multi-national firm that's been granted authority to be a monopoly by a ridiculous agreement Lebanon made with the IMF (typical privatization/guarantee of private profits in exchange for a high interest loan). I wouldn't be surprised if most of the developing world is in the same boat...

In The Bahamas

[zotz]

In The Bahamas...

It is claimed that VOIP (say vonage) is illegal. Two local telco's supposedly provide legal voip. One is the government owned former telco monopoly.

all the best,

drew