jeffpulver
Premium,VIP
join:2003-02-08
Melville, NY |  VoIP a Tower of Babel? - from CNET
Hi All,
Just saw this story posted to CNET News:
"VoIP a Tower of Babel?" - CNET - July 17, 2003
»tinyurl.com/ha0y |
|
ejrobinson
Premium
join:2003-05-16
Miami Beach, FL | It's nice publicity for you, but the author distorts the truth. From what he writes one might imagine that a vonage user can't call a packet8 or a voicepulse user. As you know, this just isn't true.
-er |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to jeffpulver
I don't get it - seems like this whole story is based on a false assumption, which is that VoIP users can't talk to each other. In fact, any VoIP user that has a standard 11-digit phone number can be called by any user of a competing product, simply by dialing the number in the normal way.
However, perhaps the question that should be asked is why such calls should ever need to leave the Internet. Suppose you lived next door to me in Michigan, and that hypothetically I used VoicePulse and you had Vonage (I use those two as an example because both have switches in New Jersey, and I don't mean to slight P8). Even if we both had New Jersey numbers, a call between you and I would at very least have to travel over a local PSTN circuit from one provider's switch to the CLEC used by the other provider, and there might even be one or more digital to analog and back to digital transitions involved.
But if your Vonage number was in California, my call to you would probably travel from my house, via the Internet to the VoicePulse switch New Jersey, then over a PSTN line from New Jersey to the California CLEC, then back to Vonage's switch (probably back in New Jersey), then back over the Internet to you. If we both had cable modem service, our conversations would likely come in and out over the same local path, but take a wild ride around the country to travel maybe a couple hundred feet. And the delay would likely be very noticeable!
It would make a lot of sense to cut the CLEC's and long distance companies right out of the equation for VoIP to VoIP calls, but that would require some degree of cooperation among the VoIP carriers. One thing I wonder is whether Jeff Pulver is the person to pull this off, because even in this forum there have been questions about his ties to Vonage. Even if he is trying his best to be impartial, I'm not sure whether all the VoIP providers would see him in that light.
Nevertheless, this is a conversation that the VoIP providers ought to be having with each other - it is to their mutual self-interest to give their customers better connections on such calls, and to avoid paying originating or terminating charges to a CLEC or a PSTN long distance company on such calls (doing that makes NO sense at all). However, if one VoIP carrier tries to act like the 800 lbs. gorilla that's going to dictate the terms of any such agreements, I expect things will fall apart rather quickly. I hope that in spite of the differences, these agreements can be forged sooner rather than later. |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| reply to jeffpulver
Might as well throw this one in too:
»biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030716/nyw108_1.html
This type of stuff is going to further complicate exactly what is "telecommunications service" and what is "information service". |
|
jeffpulver
Premium,VIP
join:2003-02-08
Melville, NY
| reply to ejrobinson
said by ejrobinson  :
...but the author distorts the truth.
Understood.
After reading his last story: "Is VOIP ready for prime time?" I reached out to the author and tried to get his attention. After speaking with him for about an hour spread over a couple of days, he was able to get 7/8ths of the story correct. That's more than I can say for many writers out there. 
And I do agree that the Vonage quote was taken out of context.
During the interview I tried to explain that when one looks back at the evolution of "commercial" email, there was a time, not that long ago, when all email systems were separate and proprietary and as the commercial internet started to happen, and mail standards started to evolve in the IETF, over time, companies installed mail gateways on their networks to exchange email from their internal network with external networks....and as a result, people were eventually able to exchange email with others outside of their domain and now take this functionality for granted. I still remember the summer of 1996 when AOL opened up their network for the first time and allowed AOLers to reach outside of AOL. I understand that a similar but different parallel also existed in the early days of the telephone network.
I did try to explain that what we were doing was nothing different and very much expected in the evolution of IP Communications. Hopefully the next story will be more accurate. |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to jeffpulver
One other point I would like to make. Up until long distance carriers entered the picture, there was really no such thing as originating charges or terminating charges in the traditional telephone network. Everything was "bill and keep" - in other words, whatever company billed for the call kept the money. If there was a great disparity in money collected, then there was a settlements process that occurred on an annual basis, but it was not based strictly on call volumes nor minutes of use - it was more of an outright subsidy from big companies like AT&T to smaller rural phone companies that didn't have much outgoing traffic.
Now, the big three VoIP companies don't bill for individual calls to begin with (except on regional plans, which I expect will disappear as these companies get more market share) so I think "bill and keep" (or more accurately, "no bill at all") would be a better model for interconnections between these companies. After all, you can't always assume that a call benefits the caller more than the person being called. Many phone calls benefit both parties, or the recipient more than the person who called. If you aren't charging for calls by the minute to begin with, and the recipient of the call doesn't pay by the minute either, and you're using the public Internet as your transport mechanism, then there's no good reason that anyone should be paying anyone else per-minute charges to carry those calls. Yes, the traditional phone companies do it (this mainly started as a way to inhibit competition) but that doesn't mean VoIP companies need to do it with each other. And, again, there is no good reason to do it, since your transport costs are essentially nil (only the cost of bandwidth, and you'd need that to complete the call anyway).
Now the reason I bring this up is because I'm still wondering if Jeff Pulver is the right person to bring these companies together. Five years ago he started something called the "Minutes Exchange" (see »www.thedigest.com/97/97-32.html ) in which he apparently attempted to act as some kind of middleman between Internet Telephony Service Providers. Thus his thinking is apparently that minutes of use need to be tallied and exchanged, and I don't think that's the right model for calls from one "unlimited use" VoIP provider to another.
So the first question I would ask Jeff is whether he thinks that any money should exchange hands on these inter-provider connections. And also, whether anyone is paying him (or if he expects anyone to pay him) to connect calls to or from Free World Dialup users. If we knew that we'd have a better idea of whether his plan is realistic or not. The other real question is why the VoIP companies would need a middleman to begin with, when they are perfectly capable of negotiating interconnection agreements with each other (particularly if that middleman might want to get paid a small amount for each minute of usage).
I have nothing personal against Jeff, you understand, it's just that I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish here, nor whether this is an act of altruism or of trying to involve himself in the process for some other reason (in other words, is there any kind of profit motive here)? If the latter, I think such things ought to be disclosed up front so that all parties involved know what they're getting into.
So, Jeff, if you happen to read this, let me ask you straight out - is anyone paying you right now to complete calls to or from Free World Dialup users? And, do you expect the VoIP carriers to pay each other, or to pay YOU, when they exchange traffic in the way you've envisioned? |
|
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
 ·RCN CABLE
| reply to jeffpulver
I read the article from CNET and there are some valid points. Most companies like to protect their subscriber database, this in the VOIP world, can limit technological advances. I was thinking of subscribing to Vonage but it is almost the same price that I would pay for POTS. I use the calling cards internationally which use VOIP switches. Vonage & all the other VOIP is about the same price as POTS, when you break down the fees.
The only way to integrate different networks would be to develop in joint ventures with other VOIP providers and set standards for communication between different VOIP customers. The additional cost of equipment makes VOIP less attractive to the mainstream consumer.
Also, there may come a day that the FCC might try to heavily regulate VOIP due to the fact that Verizon may lobby Congress to have laws written in their favor.
"Invention & Innovation make great partners" SeanMaggs (C) 2003
--
"So much for a prison sentence, when you got college. Come to my college and you will see what I am talking about. Locked behind the cinder blocks wall of a NYC College Instructional Facility" |
|
jeffpulver
Premium,VIP
join:2003-02-08
Melville, NY
| reply to WhyADuck
WhyADuck,
Interesting reply posting.
The business model for Free World Dialup directly reflects my understanding of the Dr. Atkins Business Model but modified for the communications industry.
This will become much clearer over time. It does mean that I do plan on publishing my own book on the coming Communications Industry Revolution.
Kind regards,
Jeff |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| Jeff, thanks for your reply. I'll take that as an indication that you don't want to answer my direct questions, which were, "is anyone paying you right now to complete calls to or from Free World Dialup users? And, do you expect the VoIP carriers to pay each other, or to pay YOU, when they exchange traffic in the way you've envisioned?"
I must admit I'm not familiar with the Dr. Atkins Business Model - if anyone understands that reference, please feel free to enlighten us. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| I'm guessing that he means that if he builds a field of interest (as Dr. Atkins did with low-carb diets) and is also recognized as the seminal expert in the area, he can make money off of various offerings, including books. Atkins was always very definite in furthering his view, but he also welcomed other entrants in the field and complemented their work--truly a "missionary" style of work.
For many, the verdict on Jeff's efforts--i.e., "missionary" or "mercenary"--is still out. Time will tell, I suppose, but I have an affinity for anyone taking on the entrenched slugs of the telecom industry....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
redstepchild
Premium
join:2002-01-04
Birmingham, AL
| reply to jeffpulver
I hear Cable Companies are going to sue VOIP
though everyone here in the Forums disputes this.. I am VERY interested to hear your take on the "rumblings" from the Data Broadband side?
You can play ignorance on this question. Just curious if you were at liberty to discuss any issues or possible VOIP partnerships w/ ISP's (much like the Earthlink & VOIP partnership recently forged).
--
I'm a Cable girl.. In a Cable World.....RedStepChild@dslr.net |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
|  You heard this where? As far as I'm concerned, until a suit is filed, this is just FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Remember that the whole reason for the Internet's existence is to exchange data, and VoIP is just another form of data. If any cable company ever were stupid enough to file such a lawsuit, it would only cause a backlash against them, and probably within a month a dozen programs would spring up to encrypt the data and make it look like some other form of traffic that they cannot block (such as FTP or HTTP). Not only that, but I cannot imagine any circumstances under which they could prevail in such a lawsuit. I mean, the government of Panama tried to block access to VoIP from that nation and their supreme court immediately struck it down, but if they hadn't, people were already working on tunneling software that would have allowed the VoIP packets to pass disguised as something else.
Not that I think there are any limits to the bounds of corporate stupidity (the big phone companies keep proving that to be true), but any cable company even thinking about something this dumb should just pass out revolvers to all the corporate executives and they can all take turns shooting each other in the foot... that would be just about as intelligent.
Please, if you're going to make claims this preposterous, back them up with some form of documentation!
One other thing, remember that the VoIP companies are not their customers, they are simply providing an Internet-based service. So the only ones that the cable companies could go after would be their own customers (for using VoIP, and then only if it violated their Terms of Service), and I can't think of too many faster ways to lose customers, especially if there are any viable alternatives.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-19 17:47:23] |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| I must agree with WhyADuck on this one, I don't know what cable companies would gain by suing? It would be easier to just buy the VoIP companies. That leads to another question, how can you sue a technology? Are they supposed to be suing Vonage, or 8x8, or VoicePulse, or Jeff Pulver, or Cisco, I mean, who on earth do you list as defendants? I'm really not sure that cable companies even view VoIP as any sort of threat, and the reaction I get from them is that they feel their versions based on PacketCable (if it ever gets here) will easily outclass the VoIP startups out there. I would be interested in "who" is saying this sort of stuff.
--
"This is it, a few bumps and we're hauling the mail." |
|
redstepchild
Premium
join:2002-01-04
Birmingham, AL
| reply to redstepchild
My question was directed at Mr. Pulver.
If he chooses not to respond, then that is his choice. Whyaduck and BillRoland, I am not debating the info I was given. I am asking a simple question of our forum guest.
It is not your place,Whyaduck, to tell me how I should post my questions.
And as far as you are concerned Whyaduck, go crash someone else's post's with your diatribes.
Now if the question was openly directed to ANYONE, sure.. post your diatribe.
I am interested to hear what Mr Pulver has to say. The lack of his posting an answer is interesting.
--
I'm a Cable girl.. In a Cable World.....
RedStepChild@dslr.net
[text was edited by author 2003-07-21 04:31:31] |
|
ejrobinson
Premium
join:2003-05-16
Miami Beach, FL
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to redstepchild
Re: I hear Cable Companies are going to sue VOIP
I think one problem here is how the question is posed. It is conceivable that an isp might forbid the use of voip by its customers. It is also quite likely that some countries, especially in the 3rd world, might forbid voip through isp's operating in said countries. The reason is because smaller countries rely on the inflated profits from the phone business. Further, in totalitarian countries, phone use through voip would escape any control, so such countries would be most vigilant in the suppression of voip.
It is obviously impossible to sue voip. No one can sue a technology, only the utilization of said technology. There are many examples: peer-to-peer sharing (napster, kazaa, etc.), web hosting by broadband customers, use of an isp to send spam, etc.
In the usa and in europe voip broadband isp's might well wish to reserve any phone applications to themselves for obvious reasons. It wouldn't concern bandwidth usage, which is minimal.
However, unlike the installation of a file or mail server, which is detectable by the isp without too much trouble, voip usage is harder to determine and may well be almost impossible to block.
I can't imagine an isp suing vonage or any other voip provider. Unlike music or movies, there is no copyright infringement involved. An isp may attempt to prevent voip usage through blockage of udp ports. But, I am not certain that is feasible.
-er |
|
redstepchild
Premium
join:2002-01-04
Birmingham, AL | reply to jeffpulver
thank you Jeff
He emailed me his answer.. And thank you for providing an answer.
--
I'm a Cable girl.. In a Cable World.....RedStepChild@dslr.net |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA | Why couldnt he post it here? |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to redstepchild
Re: My question was directed at Mr. Pulver.
said by redstepchild :
If he chooses not to respond, then that is his choice. Whyaduck and BillRoland, I am not debating the info I was given. I am asking a simple question of our forum guest.
It is not your place,Whyaduck, to tell me how I should post my questions.
And as far as you are concerned Whyaduck, go crash someone else's post's with your diatribes.
Now if the question was openly directed to ANYONE, sure.. post your diatribe.
Well, you posted it in an open forum. That makes it fair game for anyone to comment on. If you don't want me or anyone else responding to your posts, and particularly if you wish to address your questions or comments to one particular person, you should use private messaging or e-mail.
This isn't your private playground, red, and once you post something here it's not your prerogative to say who can respond to it, or in what manner. And that's particularly true when you make a post containing information that appears to be untrue, and that has the potential to worry or upset other, less-knowledgeable forum participants.
In other words, sorry, but the answer is NO - I'll respond to your posts whenever I feel like it as long as you post them in a public forum. And in particular, any time you post FUD, you can expect people, myself included, to call you on it. You don't like it, start your own forum someplace and run it with heavy moderation. You'll probably wind up talking to yourself, but at least you won't have to contend with pesky people like us who make it a point to set the record straight.
said by redstepchild :
I am interested to hear what Mr Pulver has to say. The lack of his posting an answer is interesting.
What's really interesting is that, as you indicated later, he e-mailed an answer to you. Apparently he knows how to communicate with someone when he doesn't want his comments seen (or commented upon) by others in the forum.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-21 14:04:48] |
|
floshcannon
join:2003-06-05
Ashland, MO
|
whyaduck. you seriously need to get a life, dude. Or lighten up. I would suspect getting a life is more like it though. Why would anyone with anything better to do with their time, decide to write 1,000 word essays on basically every time they post to this board?? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | No need for insults...please keep this thread clean.... |
|
