how-to block ads
|
ZOverLord
Premium
join:2003-10-20
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to claudeo
Re: Skype now $29.95 a YEAR unlimited calls
said by claudeo  :Skype is definitely not a replacement for a "real" phone service. And they never have made that claim, in fact, they state such and always have:
»support.skype.com/index.php?_a=k···s&_i=750
--
Black, Grey and White Hats Unite here -> »testing.OnlyTheRightAnswers.com | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Bresnan Online
 ·VOIPo
1 edit | I'm sure however that it's just a matter of time. While there are plenty of Skype fans, this thread has emphasized mainly on comparing Skype to traditional SIP voip.
Many people using SIP voip have indeed made voip a POTS replacement. They may have backups like cellular, a 2nd voip, or other solutions, but they still have dropped ma'bell in it's entirety. So, if Skype truly wants to compete with traditional voip to take some of that market share, then they are going to have to address a couple of areas. The 911 issue and a standalone adapter to allow connecting an existing pots wiring scheme. To include jacks, fax machine, directv, etc....
Now, it is possible that Skype will try and stay where VOIP SHOULD HAVE STAYED. Many people who are using Skype, are using it as an auxillary system. A service to compliment their other phone services. Using it for cheap long distance calls. That is where voip was, and should have stayed. Unfortunately, customer demanding 911 services. Demanded quality and service equal to that of Ma'Bell. Unfortunately for this, the government got involved.
Hopefully Skype, can stay away from this trap. If they can produce the adapter, they will get a lot of people to try it. Including me. If they have the balls, they can tell the FCC and US government to kiss their voip butt. It may come down to the skypein and skypeout programs. With USA DID offered, the government can work their way in. Mainly because I doubt that Skype owns these DID's. It's probably a clec. Skypeout can fight all this. Just like wengo, sipdiscount, etc... who work fine out of the country.
Personally, I'd love to see them fight and win. If having a phone in the first place ISN'T MANDATORY. Believe me when I say that I have met people who don't have a phone. If having a phone isn't mandated by law, then if you do have one, having 911 service shouldn't be mandated by law. I think a large portion of the population doesn't care about 911 services. Without the government, there also wouldn't by the USF fund, state taxes, etc... Like I said, in the future, having skypeIn might have to deal with the US FCC and these issues, but SkypeOut should be able to find a workaround. I hope they do. That could be their #1 marketing ploy. "Hey FCC; Skype You!!!". Anyway, first things first. The adapter so Skype can be used as a phone and not an IM service. Later... Mike.... | |
redshift
Premium
join:2004-03-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| Well they already had two workarounds in place, the first was that they were based in Europe, but now that they are owned by ebay this no longer applies. The second is precisely what's bothering so many in this forum, they sell skype in and skype out services separately. That's why the FCC hasn't stepped in (yet). Since you don't necessarily have a DID or a skype out service at the same time (unless you choose to) you do not have a true replacement of a phone service.
I'm sure there are people out there that are truly using skype as a POTS replacement, but I don't think that this is what the service was meant for nor what it should be used for at this current time. | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| Agreed. I think if 3rd party voip had stayed that route, instead of bowing down to the minority of consumers, it would have progressed much further than it is now. People would have been able to choose voip as a replacement to pots or not. They would have been able to decide if they wanted E911 or not. All the choices would have been left to the consumer where it belonged. Then, the different providers could have excelled in the areas they wanted to instead of having to conform to a bunch of FCC and minority consumer requrements.
Anyway, even though I don't use skype, and have no current reason to use it, I hope that they can stay the course and not be sucked in to what the traditional voip providers have come to. With an ATA available, no E911 service if desired, no additional fees and taxes, etc.... Skype could definitely make a real stand. Especially for those who want a long distance option and have no need of a POTS line, let alone a replacement. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone needs things like E911, nor do we want them. Some just want a distant DID because they live away from their families. i.e. Military, college students, moved for work, etc... That line has no need of 911 or all the other crap. Later... Mike.... | |
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Mike I know you've got this "thing" about E911 being force fed, but come on... are you really implying that it's made any significant difference in how VoIP is marketed or how competitive the companies are? They WANTED to be perceived as POTS replacements, not Internet toys, and lots of us customers wanted it too. The government fees are really just a minor distraction (like any tax).
Whether or not Skype has to support E911 (and personally I think they should) won't have any major effect on anything as far as I see.
As for me, I saw the thread turning into a "SIP v. Skype" kind of discussion, and was somewhat surprised to see in the end that they're just not AT ALL comparable at present. It looked like the Skype users here were touting it as comparable to SIP based companies like Vonage et al., but that's just not true. I'm glad to see others confirm that impression.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| I definitely don't think Skype is comparable to SIP. SIP is more to POTS, as Skype is to "Instant Messaging". There is no comparison.
As far as the 911 issue goes, I do believe it has had a major impact. Lets go back about 18 months; give or take. The different voip providers all had something different to offer. Each had their niche. Packet8 had E911 (Optional Service). They also had business customers and Video Phones. Vonage had name recognition and retail store convenience. SunRocket was coming along with 1 yearly price for all and no hidden charges. Lingo had overseas calls included. The list goes on.
When Ma'Bell, customers, (FCC discontinuing DSL from paying fees), and a few other interjections and complaints; the FCC decided that for the good of "PUBLIC SAFETY" it was imperative that Voip offer E911 services. Forget the fact that voip wasn't regulated. Forget the fact that a PHONE IS NOT MANDATORY; so why make any of it's features mandatory. Forget the fact that most people were augmenting their phone service with voip.
Anyway, E911 lead to higher fees. That lead to states deciding to charge taxed. Which lead to the USF addition. The list goes on. I believe that E911 to voip was a big negative. If Skype can avoid this trap, and provide an ATA type of interface, there will be a large sector of people who will give it a go. Without the 911 and all the associated fees and taxes that will follow it, it could be attractive. Don't get me wrong; Voip is still better and cheaper than POTS. It's just that it would have been even BETTER and Cheaper with out 911 and the politics that followed it. Each provider could find it's niche group of customers and specialties. Just like it use to be. Later... Mike.... | |
nonymous
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
| reply to Agrajag
How does Skype handle the trade off to pots lines. There is usually a charge for that last mile, Most of the people me and my wife call have cell or pots. Live to far from any dsl or cable, So that last ,mile to pots. Will the price go up? Or is there a cheat workaround? | |
redshift
Premium
join:2004-03-23
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to B
B,
I disagree. I don't think that skype should provide e911 requirements at all. First of all the majority of its users are overseas, and why would they find this useful? Would skype then have to provide e000 or other such services as well for the non North American users? Secondly I highly doubt that skype is trying to market itself as a complete POTS replacement, it's designed to take advantage of cheap long distance, or people who can communicate directly with each other, cheap DID for people away from home or with family/friends in other parts of the world, a phone service for people travelling etc. Though theoretically you can replace a POTS service using skype I still don't believe that this is what it was designed for. If that changes then maybe it would make sense to mandate e911, but even then they would have to provide emergency numbers for all other countries as well, especially if the user was based somewhere else and using telephone service for a different country - but this would become a logistical nightmare.
--
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." | |
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Well that makes no sense to me, redshift. I'm talking only about the US. I happen to appreciate that 911 is a common feature of phone service in the US and I think that providers offering outbound connections to the POTS network should offer 911 connectivity. (I'm not necessarily agreeing that anyone should have been FORCED to provide E911, but that it's good for them to be providing it.) Why in the world would any of that imply that Skype or anyone else have to support E911 outside US borders?
Other countries have their own VoIP rules, some of them incredibly restrictive. The VoIP companies have to deal with that too. I'm just talking about calls originating in the US. It's pretty easy to define those! And US Skype users who roam out of the country are in no different a position relative to E911 than a Vonage user dragging his or her ATA to Europe would be.
Any "logistical nightmare" is already there; it's what it takes to provide a commercial service across national borders. I still don't see Mike's point as anything other than a complaint about raised prices and grinding a political axe; none of the vendor-differentiating factors he praises about the "good old days" have disappeared due to E911 regulation. Each vendor still has their strengths and unique features. All that's happened is that the costs to the consumer have increased slightly, often offset by ever-lower prices from the very competition he's claiming has been hampered. Again, that's the minor net effect of any ordinary tax (well conceived or not), and I don't see E911/USF/etc. as being any different. It's roughly equivalent to requiring automakers to include seat belts or airbags. Anti-federalist/libertarian/I'mARealConservative/whatever people whine, it increases costs to all involved, but in the end it saves a few lives, perhaps yours, and is a minor and nearly invisible financial inconvenience. And it can even be a SELLING point -- higher end cars are differentiating themselves on how MANY or how COOL or how ADVANCED their individual air bag systems are. VoIP can do the same with E911.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
redshift
Premium
join:2004-03-23
Beverly Hills, CA
1 edit | Well it makes perfect sense to me since skype is mainly followed by non north American users. So if they were mandated to provide e911 wouldn't they also be then required by other countries to provide emergency services for those countries as well? And yes, whatever skype does in the US will significantly affect the users overseas, especially if their governments also decide to implement legislation requiring skype to provide e000 etc services.
Also unlike many American based voip providers the majority of users that get American based DIDs are usually based overseas and use this as a cheap way of communicating with friends/family in the US. So why would these users require e911?
Even if they provided e911 just for people in the US, I don't see the point as no one is required to get a DID (skypein) so one could assume that at least some of the customers using skypeout would have some alternate form of 911 service. Again if skype were bundling the service together then maybe you would have a valid point, but at this stage they are two seperate services.
I still think that there is absolutely no point in mandating e911 service for a company that doesn't market itself as a POTS replacement. There has got to be a point in time where people learn to take responsibility for their actions, and if they use this as a POTS replacement then they do so at their own risk.
--
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | I would be curious how e911 could possible work with Skype. If I have skype-out installed on my laptop and am roaming around, how would Skype know where to report my location? | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| said by Maxo :I would be curious how e911 could possible work with Skype. If I have skype-out installed on my laptop and am roaming around, how would Skype know where to report my location? It would have to be the same as existing voip providers. If I take my adapter with my on vacation to the in-laws, I need to go to my account section and change the address. (Yea, we all remember to do that).
As far as making 911 mandatory, that is my problem. When I first signed up for packet8, they had 911, but it was an option. An option you paid for if you wanted it. I am not complaining about the extra few dollars, per se. I am complaining that it has lead to more government involvement. That is why we now have the USF, Local 911 fees, some same taxes, etc... The more government involvement, the more regulation. The more regulation, the more resources a company has to use to comply. The more resources used, the less resources available for other innovations, customer service, tech support, etc... Yes, if money wasn't an issue, then the voip providers could do anything and everything perfectly. Then, we would be paying almost what POTS would have cost.
I have worked for the federal government. I have worked for state government. I have worked for private companies like Ma'Bell (Qwest), ClearChannel, etc... I know how companies are impacted by regulations. As redshift pointed out, people need to become responsible for themselves and their own actions. Nobody said you couldn't have 911 service if that's what you wanted. Some providers were, and would provide it. You could pay extra for it. Let the market dictate. If customers really wanted 911 services, the providers would give it to them. If they didn't like the quality of it, another provider would excel in it an make it one of their strong points. Competition works great. Government involvement SUCKS.
Talking about automobiles and those regulations aren't the same. Many of the regulations are wrong. While a car company needs to provide seat belts; in case the operator want them; should be mandated for safety purposes. Mandating that the user has to wear those seat belts is another thing and is wrong. Other than that, the other regulations with automobiles are required because your actions have a direct impact on other people. Your speeding, reckless driving, drunk driving, etc... all impact other people. You not having 911 services is only affecting you and those under your direct control. (Your family). Later... Mike.... | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| I would like E-911 service mandated for VOIP, AFTER a feasible technology for implementing it has been put in place. As it stands, and as I understand it, E-911 is hardly a reliable service. There would need to be an on-demand back-end system that could resolve an IP to location. This would be done by a request to an ISP, the ISP would look at who currently has that IP address, and at what location. This, of course, comes with its own can of worms.
There's also the issue of VOIP technologies such as AIM and Yahoo! chat, that don't act in the same way. Where would we want to define mandating E-911 VOIP? When it hooks into the telco lines? I don't know.
In the event of an emergency one does need a reliable service to get an ambulance. The fact that the telephone service is so widely implemented, and that a call to 911 has to go through is a good thing IMO. Molding that with VOIP brings up lots of questions because of the way public IPs are handed out. Maybe IPV6 will pave the way, when static IPs can be made more readily available.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| No matter what you think of 911; what it should or shouldn't do for you; there is still the issue of reliability. That is something that NO VOIP PROVIDER can guarantee. With ma'Bell, you have a straight copper line end to end between you and the phone company, and then to the 911 trunk. That's as reliable as it gets. With voip, you have to "HOPE" that your ISP is up when you need 911. Hope that your network, router, modem, adapter, etc... hasn't locked up or acting weird when you need 911. There are so many variables.
When you went to voip, you took the Central Office away from Ma'Bell and took over those responsibilities yourself. That little adapter of yours "IS THE CENTRAL OFFICE". Now, considering a DMS-100 or Avaya Switch costs millions of dollars, and your adapter at the most cost about $59; Which one do you think is more reliable. So, until your broadband connection becomes as reliable as a POTS line. Until your network becomes as reliable as Ma'Bell's Central Office. Until these things happen, 911 will not be as reliable as with Ma'Bell, and people will continue to bitch about it.
That's why I am a firm believer in NOT forcing voip providers to "Have to Provide anything". Take voip for what it is, and what it has to offer. If you want a guaranteed 911 service, hold on to a basic ma'bell line for this purpose only. Have cellular and other backup systems. Basically, take back the responsibility for the safety of you and your family, and stop putting the responsibility and ultimately the blame when it doesn't work, on the provider and the government. If emergency services don't make it to you when you need it, it is totally your problem. Even the courts have ruled that it is NOT the police department's responsibility to protect you. They can't be sued if they don't respond or aren't capable of helping. Later... Mike... | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by christcorp :No matter what you think of 911; what it should or shouldn't do for you; there is still the issue of reliability. That is something that NO VOIP PROVIDER can guarantee. With ma'Bell, you have a straight copper line end to end between you and the phone company, and then to the 911 trunk. That's as reliable as it gets. With voip, you have to "HOPE" that your ISP is up when you need 911. Hope that your network, router, modem, adapter, etc... hasn't locked up or acting weird when you need 911. There are so many variables. Yeah, I won't be ditching POTS anytime soon. I've been wanted to try out VOIP for a while but couldn't justify adding another bill just to try it out. This $15/yr was what I've been looking for.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| said by Maxo :said by christcorp :No matter what you think of 911; what it should or shouldn't do for you; there is still the issue of reliability. That is something that NO VOIP PROVIDER can guarantee. With ma'Bell, you have a straight copper line end to end between you and the phone company, and then to the 911 trunk. That's as reliable as it gets. With voip, you have to "HOPE" that your ISP is up when you need 911. Hope that your network, router, modem, adapter, etc... hasn't locked up or acting weird when you need 911. There are so many variables. Yeah, I won't be ditching POTS anytime soon. I've been wanted to try out VOIP for a while but couldn't justify adding another bill just to try it out. This $15/yr was what I've been looking for. Excellent. Sounds like you've got a great chance to save some money on your long distance bills. FWIW, when the time comes, if 911 is still an issue for you, most phone companies allow the very minimum bare bone service for under $20 a month. Local calls only and 911. Different Ma'bells are different. Later... Mike.... | |
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
| reply to christcorp
said by christcorp :said by Maxo :I would be curious how e911 could possible work with Skype. If I have skype-out installed on my laptop and am roaming around, how would Skype know where to report my location? It would have to be the same as existing voip providers. If I take my adapter with my on vacation to the in-laws, I need to go to my account section and change the address. (Yea, we all remember to do that). As far as making 911 mandatory, that is my problem. When I first signed up for packet8, they had 911, but it was an option. An option you paid for if you wanted it. I am not complaining about the extra few dollars, per se. I am complaining that it has lead to more government involvement. That is why we now have the USF, Local 911 fees, some same taxes, etc... The more government involvement, the more regulation. The more regulation, the more resources a company has to use to comply. The more resources used, the less resources available for other innovations, customer service, tech support, etc... Yes, if money wasn't an issue, then the voip providers could do anything and everything perfectly. Then, we would be paying almost what POTS would have cost. I have worked for the federal government. I have worked for state government. I have worked for private companies like Ma'Bell (Qwest), ClearChannel, etc... I know how companies are impacted by regulations. As redshift pointed out, people need to become responsible for themselves and their own actions. Nobody said you couldn't have 911 service if that's what you wanted. Some providers were, and would provide it. You could pay extra for it. Let the market dictate. If customers really wanted 911 services, the providers would give it to them. If they didn't like the quality of it, another provider would excel in it an make it one of their strong points. Competition works great. Government involvement SUCKS. Talking about automobiles and those regulations aren't the same. Many of the regulations are wrong. While a car company needs to provide seat belts; in case the operator want them; should be mandated for safety purposes. Mandating that the user has to wear those seat belts is another thing and is wrong. Other than that, the other regulations with automobiles are required because your actions have a direct impact on other people. Your speeding, reckless driving, drunk driving, etc... all impact other people. You not having 911 services is only affecting you and those under your direct control. (Your family). Later... Mike.... Well this is turning into an anti-reg political rant, but for 911 I can think of a number of cases where not having it affects more that just your family. A fire in an apartment or business, for example, will affect way more than one family if lack of 911 means that you can't get the fire put out quickly.
I happen to agree that little of this stuff should be mandated by government, but I also think that when you start going down this path in the conversation, it will quickly get locked. | |
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| I'm just saying that no government involvement is one of the few things that makes Skype appear attractive. 911 is just one of the perks. Owning a telephone is not Mandatory. So, if having a phone in the first place isn't mandatory, neither should the features it has. Let the providers use the market to provide it to those who need it. I know people who kept their POTS line as well as a voip. They already have 911 available on the pots. Why should they have to have it on their voip line? If you are a business with a PBX and numerous lines, why should you have to pay for 911 on all the lines? Can't you PBX send 911 calls out on a particular trunk?
The point is; Even though Skype doesn't currently provide me anything more than a novelty and glorified IM service. Providing an adapter to use standard phones, fax, directv, etc.... and keeping the government mandates out of it's service, would definitely make it an attractive option. Later... Mike.... | |
redshift
Premium
join:2004-03-23
Beverly Hills, CA | reply to Maxo
That's great, this is exactly what I believe skype was designed for. To save money on long distance...but not really as a replacement for you POTS line.
--
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." | |
claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| reply to Agrajag
Although I have right now a grand total of 2 VoIP services, plus Skype, I am not about to ditch my POTS line. And I strenuously disagree that E911 should be mandated for Skype. For several reasons.
* One is real world experience with extended power failures. My power came back on tonight after 4 days, having gone out during the catastrophic wind storm of Thursday night in the Pacific NW. Even though my modem, router and ATAs are on UPS, the DSL connection itself died just a few minutes later. No more VoIP. Throughout the 4 days, the only thing that worked reliably was POTS. To be fair. My T-Mobile cell phone also kept working, but everybody I met who was on Cingular lost service early in the outage.
* I need to receive faxes once in a while. The cheapest, simplest, no brainer solution to receive faxes is still a POTS line.
* We know E911 works on the POTS line. Keep it simple.
* I use VoIP and Skype most when I travel. It would be ridiculous to reregister an E911 address change as I go through airports and hotels. It would be even more ridiculous to impose such a requirement when using VoIP when traveling abroad.
* Unlike SIP and most POTS telephone lines, Skype is not a location based service with a specific address, IP or otherwise. In fact, you can be logged into Skype at several locations at the same time. For example, my wife is logged in constantly both at her office and at home, 15 miles away, and also "telecommutes" between the locations by remote desktop through a VPN. Same with me. My home machine is always on, and always logged into Skype, but I might also be in Europe and logged into the same Skype account. Which one of those locations would you tie 911 to?
Now, it is reasonable to force a vendor that sells VoIP as a fixed location POTS replacement (Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Packet 8, etc.) to provide 911. They make a claim and they have to live by it. But that should be an add-on option, not a mandate, if the vendor allows you to travel with your ATA (as Vonage does). | |
|
