Fierytemplar
join:2003-07-11
Warminster, PA | Catchy title here
VOIP should be regulated like any other telecommunications service, because that's what it is. |
|
JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
clubs: |  I agree! The FCC hasnt screwed voip up yet. They should get started right away! |
|
vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| reply to Fierytemplar
said by Fierytemplar  :
VOIP should be regulated like any other telecommunications service, because that's what it is.
Yes it should, but NOT like PTSN. They are calling for the same taxes and regulations that companies like verizon has to pay, that is rediculous IMO.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
 ·FrontierNet Intern..
| Why pay for something that could be free?
why use a service that the FCC can decide is a telco?
I don't see why people are going to these big VoIP companies and paying money per minute.
All it would take is a hardware device, a Dynamic DNS server, or server that list users currently online linking them to their IP's..
A PS2 could be a VoIP device!
You know those nice SOCOM headsets.
FREE VoIP.
There has to be a simple solution for almost unlimited VoIP for less than $4 a month. Yea sure Net2Phone has free software but you have to boot up a computer to get it to work.
Vonage was smart making their device connect to phones but they are still charging to much. I'd rather buy Tiger Woods Golf a PS2+network adapter+ Headset..
As long as my friend has that at his location, thats unlimited, unregulated. Not practical but good enough.
All these people complaining about VoIP, these phone services are one step below the land-line in value.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | reply to Fierytemplar
Re: Catchy title here
It's not a telecommunications service, it's a CONTENT service. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| People, VoIP is a CONTENT SERVICE
What's next, regulating web portals and streaming media? You can't regulate VoIP when they don't control the infrastructure. It's like regulating HBO and mandating reliability when they don't own the cable or satellite distributors.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| dammit, leave VOIP alone!
first, let me ask a question: if VOIP providers have to pay into the USF, shouldn't they use that money to buy people computers and get them internet connections?
Why can't they let VOIP alone? What evidence is there that it needs regulation (other than the telcos wanting if regulated out of existence, if possible). Are people being ripped off? Has anybody died because they only had VOIP and couldn't get true 911? |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to JJV
VoIP not a telecom service....
VoIP is not a telecom service. It's something that some people use instead of a telecom service, and it looks kinda like a telecom service, but so do two tin cans and a string.
In some circumstances, VoIP offerings can be at least partially a telecom service, as when they offer "universal termination" over the PSTN--there's definitely some telecom goin' on there. But a mere SIP connection between consenting adults? Not telecom.
Powell and the FCC are, frankly, too befuddled to pretend that they even understand what VoIP is or how it works. Be glad for small favors--otherwise, they'd already be screwing it up like PCS.
What are they really waiting for? Some good way to grab jurisdiction and control before VoIP kills their good friends and money sources, the telcos...
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
tlg
Premium
join:2001-08-23
Melbourne, FL
| reply to oliphant5
Re: People, VoIP is a CONTENT SERVICE
said by oliphant5 :
What's next, regulating web portals and streaming media? You can't regulate VoIP when they don't control the infrastructure. It's like regulating HBO and mandating reliability when they don't own the cable or satellite distributors.
I agree. But they would be regulating a protocol. It would be like only regulating NBC, but not any of the other content providers that you have available on your television.
The dialtone I receive comes from the equipment in my house, not by the VOIP provider. All the VOIP provider does is provide routing information, and IP centrex services.
I don't mind paying the USF charges, provided that the USF fund is used for 911 services. But in return the regional Telco's must provide 911 services to each and every home. In most cases you can get this now by just requesting it from the phone company. They will provide you with a phone line that can only dial 911.
So I can have VOIP services if I choose to as my main communication, and the VOIP provider would be exempt from providing 911 services as a requirement (one of the issues the states have). This would also leave me with an emergency phone for contacting 911 if need be.
I think that pretty much solves the issues that have been brought against the VOIP providers to date by various States. But I'm sure when you get it in front of a bunch of politicians they will manage to muck it up.
TG |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to nasadude
Re: dammit, leave VOIP alone!
I agree. If they start paying into the USF, some of that money better start going to the companies providing the broadband on which VOIP rides.
While that may be true if you have Telco-sponsored DSL, do the cable companies get to suckle from the USF mammary? |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Death blow
this is the death blow to voip. why did people flock to voip other than to escape the plethora of fees that the telcos enjoy charging us. either way it is a 'gotcha'
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
fkittred
join:2002-01-24
Biddeford, ME
| VoIP can't be regulated
I don't think those who say it should be regulated are thinking very clearly. Let us take two different cases:
1) A voice "call" is from computer to computer over the Internet and does not touch the PSTN.
2) The voice call originates or terminates on the PSTN.
In the first case,
A) there is no existing legal justification for regulating it, new legislation has to be passed.
B) Even if legislation is passed, it is unenforcable. There is no way to detect or stop people from placing such calls. I remember a conversation I had in the fall of 1994 on this topic with a very senior telco executive attending a Internet conference at which I was speaking. He took exception to me saying that "telephone calls over the Internet" (we were unfamiliar with the term VoIP then, if it had been coined yet) would be untaxed and free. I told him
"look at a stream of encrypted IP packets and tell me which one is a voice call, then you can tax it and charge for it."
The problems with music sharing over the Internet is nothing compared to detecting voice calls between consenting parties.
In the second case, if you only tax calls originating or terminating on the PSTN, you will hasten the final death of the PSTN. People would move more rapidly to use computer to computer calls.
Things don't look good for RBOCs. They dawdled with deploying DSL and they may now be too far behind to catch up.
regards,
fletcher |
|
lgfausak
join:2002-11-17
Carrollton, TX
| Big Monopolies
The local dialtone is obviously a huge monopoly.
If anyone wants to call anyone else, they
have to buy a phone from the monopoly, the only source.
Now imagine a good chunk of the population has datapipes
large enough to carry a phone call *without* the
monopoly's permission.
Finally, imagine all communications shifting to the
internet, lowering the price for communications
because VoIP service providers compete for your business.
This is what is happening. Communications will shift
to the internet over the next 5-10 years. Telcos will
be in the datapipe business. Communication will take it's
place as just another application on the internet.
I've added a shameless plug at the end here. Go ahead
and try our service. Get your friends to try it. You
can all call each oher for free, they're your bytes, use em!
If you can successfully make calls call me at 233200
and I'll enable you for 1 hour of US/Canada PC to phone
service! (limited to first 100 requests).
---greg
Greg Fausak
www.addaline.com |
|
Art Vandelay1
join:2003-10-14
| VoIP Trojan Horse
I'm curious as to why no one brings up Mr Gates when discussing VoIP. He almost slept through offering an ISP service but now MSN is almost as ubiquitous as AOL. He's not going to sleep through this Huge revenue stream. XBOX online with its VoIP capabilites is the biggest Trojan Horse of our time. This will become more evident when Microsoft puts its influence in on these regulatory issues. |
|
youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to dvd536
Re: Death blow
I would disagree. I would say it would be more of a death blow to companies like Lucent and Nortel. If everything is more pushed to IP transport then the bells will start sending back their switch's "DMS 100's etc". and just pay the early lease termation. The only company that might be ok is Nortel since they already have a VOIP product.
ym |
|
Agent 86
| If it moves, tax it
"The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan |
|
chuckpint
join:2001-07-06
Evanston, IL
|  Triple Taxed
I currently have a DSL line. I have to pay the phone company an USF tax (and I don't care what they call it, if the government collects it, it's a tax). Then I have to pay my ISP an USF tax. So the states (and I bet the Feds) will say that if I use VoIP, I have to pay USF again? So one phone line is taxed three times. Does that sound as wrong to anyone else as it does to me? |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to Fierytemplar
My Two Cents (not including the USF)
I disagree. VoIP is an evolution in communications that already has competition, unlike the current ILEC model, and forces the local and long distance providers into an "infrastructure provider only" role. Furthermore, it will force these same providers to compete and evolve, something regulation has failed to accomplish.
Where current VoIP providers "dump" calls into a LATA there are access circuits and the access circuit providers are passing along all fees and associated taxes. So to say the VoIP providers don't participate in these legalized fiduciary theft programs is patently false. Further, the industry selling VoIP providers access into a given LATA have no business complaining because they are not forced to sell to the VoIP providers.
Lumping VoIP into the current telecommunications model is no different than saying IM, email, or even walkie-talkies are telecommunications services. It should be placed into a new category called "content communications" and regulated only to ensure interoperability. Everything else is a function of infrastructure and should be regulated there.
Regulating VoIP in the current telecommunications model is the wrong approach and will only hurt the US consumer. |
|
