how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1842 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| The Battle for VoIP in the US Hi All,
I realized that I previously posted about this back in February when the NARUC Winter Meetings were going on and while some people came forward and wrote letters to their State Public Utility Commissioners, now more than ever we need to reach out on a proactive basis and make it known that we want to see a sustained IP Communications Revolution and in effect encourage those who wish to offer Broadband IP Voice services to be able to do so.
I'm in the process of updating my website page, "Updated: VoIP Regulatory Battle moving to the US States." I have working summaries of where we are on a State level. Details can be found at:
»pulver.com/reports/statesfightvoip.html
After Labor day I will be working on launching a new consumer driven grass-roots effort to make sure the established US Telecommunications industry knows that consumers care about VoIP.
If there is anyone from the DSL Reports community who is inspired to help fight this battle, please feel feee to email me directly using: jeffp@pulver.com
Best regards,
Jeff | |
| Jeff, sent you an email on this.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-22 12:06:42] | |
| reply to jeffpulver
Is there any middle ground here?
I really believe that Vonage is a telecom service, but weather the need for tariffs or common carrier status is necessary- cant there be some debate?
It seems like, and maybe I'm wrong, that its either we are free from everything, or we have to do business just like a local exchange.
911 renforces the problem, because yes maybe Vonage's intentions were good, but without 911 centers knowing that Vonage is sending calls this way, knowing that these people use broadband phone, knowing that Vonage isnt a telephone company, they are adding to potential problem 911 centers already face...slow response times, and center overload.
Today its 911, tommorow it may be hundreds of complaints that Vonage over billed, or it took 2 months to port numbers, ect. I know there was a recent service outage, and it never was mentioned by Vonage. Many people on this, very small slice of Vonage users, experience mis routed calls and was never informed of what the problem was, or that there was even a problem in the first place. Those are big telephone company actions, and if thats how Vonage operates they not only should, but need to be regulated.
I am not trying to piss everyone here off, I know you like VoIP, I do too. But I dont understand how full immunity from any telephone company considerations will be applicable, and evermore as these companies grow.
I also would like to point out that VoIP is more than just Vonage, the only reason we still dial telephone numbers is tradition. VoIP will survive and without regulation, for example FWD will probably not get regulated. If it did, you would also have to regulate interoffice toll bypass, something the State regulators may be using themselves.
I am more than willing to address this to the Ga PSC, but Id like to know more about what the real motives are. | |
| reply to jeffpulver
One of the BIG reasons for IP phones and service is for features like Video, which plain and simple, cannot be dont over a POTS line, like the quality you get from Packet8.
Video will be the differntiating feature vs. simply the voice. | | |
|
| reply to jeffpulver
I think it may be helpful to keep stressing the fact that wireless telephone service also advertises itself as phone service, yet most states either don't regulate it at all, or in a much different fashion than wireline telephony. VoIP is neither wireline nor wireless, it is something completely new that shares some characteristics of both wireline and wireless. Indeed, if a portable phone handset were designed to use a VoIP service via a wireless internet connection - something that is entirely possible to do - it would be much more like wireless than wireline.
The FCC has pre-empted most state regulation of wireless services, and of data services. VoIP is much more like a data service possibly combined with a wireless service than conventional wireline telephony.
The wireless carriers were given YEARS to develop an enhanced 911 system and it still doesn't work perfectly. Right now it is simply technically impossible to provide foolproof E911 on a VoIP connection. This is not sufficient reason to stifle the technology. The VoIP providers do not have control over the underlying transport mechanisms (the hundreds or thousands of individual Internet Service Providers) and those are where geographic location information would have to come from. If it were possible to geographically locate an individual Internet user, we'd have done it long ago to stop the problems of illegal spam and pornography, and to track down the senders of viruses. Sometimes it's possible to track down the location of an Internet user after weeks or months of effort, but that information is hardly available in real time.
VoIP companies are offering innovative new features that the traditional phone companies either cannot or will not offer. Features that are simply unavailable to landline telephone users are available from multiple VoIP providers. VoIP is NOT just regular landline phone service. Would you deny people access to a technologically advanced system simply because it cannot yet provide one feature that some people deem important? Those people will always have the option to retain a regular landline phone, or a wireless phone for calling 911, and they are not forced to subscribe to 911 at all.
VoIP companies have a very small percentage of the total customer base, probably well under 1%. Normally we don't start putting onerous regulations on an industry until its market penetration is far above that level.
The various state and federal agencies have been saying for the last several years that they want to see competition for telephone service that does not utilize the facilities of the incumbent local telephone companies. Even today most competitive local telephone companies are simply reselling the service of the incumbent telephone company (the local Baby Bell), and effective residential competition still hasn't reached many of the areas served by the independent telephone companies. VoIP is different in that it does not resell any part of the local telephone company's service, and in fact doesn't utilize the incumbent's facilities in any way except when it is part of incidental traffic on a DSL line.
There are still remote areas of the country where there is no telephone service, or where it is very expensive to install a phone line. But a wireless Internet service, combined with a VoIP service, could provide a form of voice communication to people in such areas at lower cost than wireless or cellular service. In extreme cases, a few VoIP offerings will work over a satellite link, although use in such cases will be more like walkie-talkie use due to latency issues. But if it's a choice between something like a walkie-talkie or nothing at all, you might appreciate the walkie-talkie. The government guards their precious Universal Service Fund, which is really corporate welfare for traditional phone companies, yet VoIP combined with wireless Internet can actually bring something very close to telephone service to many remote areas at a fraction of the expense of wireline.
Just a few points you may want to keep in mind when addressing this issue.
Yeah, I sort of got on a roll after I started writing this... sorry about the length! | |
| reply to jeffpulver
One other thing to point out...
At some point the various PUCs may ask the question, what is the difference between a regular phone line and a "broadband" phone line? That is an important question because when they get around to asking that, they are trying to apply the "duck test" - if it looks, walks, quacks etc. like a duck, it must be a duck. But the question is, does it really look and behave like plain old telephone service? On a superficial level, perhaps, but a state regulatory agency should be capable of looking underneath the surface appearance and the marketing hype to see what's really there.
And "there" is where we find the major difference. To put it one way, there's no "there" there. Specifically, what isn't there is a dedicated circuit, assigned to a single telephone user, originating at a particular customer address and terminating down the road at a particular local telephone office, with a specific and (for the most part) unchanging telephone number associated with it.
On a traditional telephone line, the telephone company knows where its phone line begins, and where it ends. While a customer might be able to effectively temporarily relocate the end-point of that circuit by using a long-range cordless telephone, the phone company generally knows within a few hundred feet where a call coming in on a particular line is originating. And they know exactly where their demarcation point is at the customer's residence or business address.
On a VoIP service, none of the above is true. The VoIP provider doesn't have any facilities at all. They are simply providing a service that is sitting at a box somewhere out on the Internet. Even their own "switching" equipment may not be in a single fixed location - there could easily be multiple switching centers in various locations that at different times take over the work of providing service to a client. The provider's entire network could be reconfigured almost on a moment's notice, if they had planned for that in advance. For example, it would not be at all impossible for a provider to have redundant systems in different cities, any of which can take over the workload of handling customer calls (much as web site operators can have backup web sites in different locations, or can move a web site to a new location simply by transferring the site data).
Now viewed one way, state and federal regulatory agencies should be jumping with joy that there is finally a way for people to have a form of telephone service that does not require resale of the incumbent local telephone companies facilities, equipment, or service. The problem is that regulators want to shoehorn the new technology into the regulatory framework that works only with the old technology, and doesn't even work very well there. In the current framework, the CLEC's and ILEC's are constantly at each other's throats (with state and federal commissions often caught in the middle), and all because the CLEC's can't get to their customers without using the facilities of the ILEC's to get "last mile" connectivity to the customer.
Except in the incidental case where DSL is used, VoIP avoids this problem, specifically because of what's not "there." Because they don't depend on the existing telephone company loop to deliver their service, the ILEC's have no more control or influence over them than they have over a wireless or cellular carrier.
Indeed, had the VoIP carriers waited a few years to deploy their service, we might not be having this discussion. I expect that in the future, more and more wireless internet providers will set up shop, and had the VoIP providers simply deployed their service using wireless handsets connected to wireless VoIP's, no one would consider trying to regulate them like a wireline phone company. Possibly the only reason that state PUC's are having a problem with VoIP is because they are relying too much on superficial appearance - they are looking at the fact that the service is made to appear to look like traditional telephone service for customer convenience, and for marketing purposes. But to go by appearances alone is very deceptive. VoIP could just as easily be packaged to look and behave like wireless telephony.
Beneath the hood, VoIP truly is a data service, not a voice service. On the Internet, the bits of a VoIP connection are indistinguishable from the bits of a web page, an e-mail message, or an instant message. It's only when the bits are decoded at the end of the line that they assume the form of voice communication. Right now that decoding is sometimes, but not always, accomplished by devices that use standard telephone sets for the user interface. But that is solely for customer comfort, to give the customer the experience of using a device they already know how to use. On the "inside", VoIP is nothing like traditional telephony, at least no more than cellular or wireless telephony is like traditional telephone service.
Again, just some talking points you may wish to use. | |
 usa2kBlessedPremium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Canton, MI
kudos:3
 ·VOIPo
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to clecrupt9
OT: Service Outage Comment said by clecrupt9:
...I know there was a recent service outage, and it never was mentioned by Vonage. ...
Vonage has sent emails to participate in a survey related to the outage, 911, and backup systems such as UPSs and cell phones.
--
jim,
Vonage User, iCH user, WideOpenWest, and a fan of LINUX and Windows in that order.
Link to In-Laws gospel quartet!
[text was edited by author 2003-08-22 19:48:38] | |
 JOE1
@verona01.nj.comcast. | reply to WhyADuck
Re: The Battle for VoIP in the US I currently use my notebook with 802.11b and Iconnecthere to make call around Manhattan New York free hot spots | |
| reply to WhyADuck
It still is telecommunications, just an advanced form. By your logic, why does AT&T have to file as a C-lec, or Sprint. Just because Sprint or AT&T has to use the local loop? Should they have to jump through hoops where Vonage does not? The truth is with Vonage there is still a loop, youve just allowed it to be extended anywhere in the world. Under the hood youve added IP as a call leg on PSTN calls, is that enough to not be telecommunications? Virtually all carriers do this now, at what point can they be information service only?
These companies knew that IP was a rocky road when they started these businesses. It was also their choice to interface to the PSTN, you dont have to. This battle seems to me to be more for Vonage than for VoIP. I still dont think pure VoIP will be touched.
Trying to allow companies to advance because you so dislike the current situation may cause even greater problems in the future.
Can we agree that some kind of new, hopefully more loose frame work will emerge thats lets these companies stay intact? | |
bfranks
join:2002-06-22
Arlington, VA | reply to jeffpulver
But it won't. No loose framework that loosens Verizon's restrictions will ever happen.
What I don't get is that Vonage still has to pay fees to use the telephone numbers right? So that is their fee they have to pay, it shouldn't really be anything more.
If verizon really wants to compete, let them spin a company off and do this themselves.
Once you get into regulation VoIP, you get into regulation of the Internet. Furthermore, if I am Vonage and get shut down here in the U.S., I simply pull my servers and place them in some other country.
I guarantee if FWD had as much success as Vonage, they would try to regulate that as well. Thing is, they can't. Telco's and PUC's must choose their battles wisely, the internet has leveled the playing field and the barriers to entry are now gone(or much lower) for other phone companies. | |
| FWD seems to me is as successful as Vonage. It has tens of thousands of subs. The difference is that there is no PSTN, or at least direct PSTN access. That (PSTN) is what is getting them in trouble. Even the fact that a service like FWD uses a telephone probably wouldnt get many people to consider it telecommunications. Whyaducks argument also holds up better about IP not being like TDM with FWD than Vonage.
Yes Vonage does pay taxes on the line, but not like a telephone company. They pay like a business, which still isnt too good. Phone companies are totally different from access charges, to tax remitance, its a whole production to go into business as a phone company. I dont want to see broadband phone providers made into Clecs, but how can you be fair to other phone companies, state law and consumers? Its a fine line and you probably cant get to the truth from any one side. | |
| said by clecrupt9:
Yes Vonage does pay taxes on the line, but not like a telephone company. ... I dont want to see broadband phone providers made into Clecs, but how can you be fair to other phone companies, state law and consumers? Its a fine line and you probably cant get to the truth from any one side.
I happen to agree with both of clecrupt's messages. If you viewed the service as a black box (i.e, looked only at the user interface), one could argue there is no difference between it and the service provided by an LEC. (Leaving aside issues of quality.)
This black phone interface is clearly what helped businesses like Vonage, Voice Pulse, and Packet8 really take off as compared to the PC-Phone business. If they required people to use "sip:" URI's they wouldn't be where they are today, and the regulators probably wouldn't be on their backs. I think the business model is good. But along with the rewards also come the dues. | |
| reply to clecrupt9
said by clecrupt9:
It still is telecommunications, just an advanced form. By your logic, why does AT&T have to file as a C-lec, or Sprint. Just because Sprint or AT&T has to use the local loop? Should they have to jump through hoops where Vonage does not?
Well, first of all, I'll say this much. In my idea of an ideal world, telecommunications would not be saddled with all the damn taxes and fees and other crap that the politicians have seen fit to pile onto it. I think that since time began, politicians have looked around to figure out what people either really want, or almost can't live without, and then they figure out some way to tax and/or regulate it. So when you ask why AT&T or Sprint has to file as a CLEC, my response would be that if it were up to me, they wouldn't have to file with anybody (for anything other than a normal business license) EXCEPT in the situation where they own or control facilities on public rights-of-way, that may create bottlenecks to competition. But that's a whole other line of debate, and therefore I will address the question I think you are really asking, which is why should a VoIP company be treated any differently than AT&T or sprint when they act as CLECs.
But first let me ask you this. Are you familiar with a device called a CellSocket, or a similar device called a VoxLink? Both of these are devices that you can buy (although one is easier to find than the other) that will let you drop in a cell phone, if it is a supported make and model phone, and it acts as a phone charger - and at the same time, it lets you plug in a regular telephone and place calls, using your regular phone and your cell phone service.
Now, from the user's perspective, there is VERY little difference, billing issues aside for the moment, between using one of these devices and an ATA-186. You could plug a phone into either one, and it would "look" rather like normal phone service. Note that in neither case is the service exactly alike - neither will let you dial local calls using only seven digits, for example. But the user interface - a standard telephone - would be pretty much the same.
Now I would hope you would agree that cell phone service is still telecommunications, just an advanced form, to paraphrase what you said. So please explain to me why the cell service provider should be exempt from filing as a CLEC, but the VoIP provider treated as though they were a landline phone service? Why would a regulatory agency assume that the VoIP provider is trying to evade some responsibility when the cell phone provider is totally absolved from most such responsibilities (and was given YEARS to comply with 911 requirements, etc.)?
said by clecrupt9:
The truth is with Vonage there is still a loop, youve just allowed it to be extended anywhere in the world. Under the hood youve added IP as a call leg on PSTN calls, is that enough to not be telecommunications?
I'd be hard pressed to identify what you are calling a "loop" in this context, but couldn't you make the exact same case about cell and wireless phones? Maybe they can't go anywhere in the world, but today they can roam over most of the populated areas of the U.S. There are many things that can be said about a VoIP provider that can also be said about a wireless or cellular company, and CANNOT be said about a landline telephone service - for example, the ability to receive calls on your phone number (directly, without invoking call forwarding) wherever you go.
said by clecrupt9:
Virtually all carriers do this now, at what point can they be information service only?
But most still use the existing, outdated infrastructure of copper pairs. Look, if I had to make a working distinction - and I know this could be considered somewhat arbitrary, but so could many current regulations - what I would say is that if the service requires a dedicated pair of copper wires to the customer's home, and at the point where it enters the interior of the home it's in analog format, then it's plain old telephone service. But if it is delivered over the public Internet, and it is up to the customer to install the conversion device (the ATA-186, for example), and the customer can install this device at any place of his or her choosing as long as an Internet connection of sufficient bandwidth is available, then it's a data service. I realize there's some gray area in between those two positions but since right now nothing's operating in that area (other than ISDN, perhaps, which is considered an unregulated service in many areas anyway), I'm not going to worry about it at the moment.
said by clecrupt9:
These companies knew that IP was a rocky road when they started these businesses. It was also their choice to interface to the PSTN, you dont have to. This battle seems to me to be more for Vonage than for VoIP. I still dont think pure VoIP will be touched.
Now that statement I very much disagree with. Actually, if I thought for a second that this would only affect Vonage, I probably wouldn't waste my time typing up these responses. I think Vonage shot themselves in the foot by the way they've marketed their service as a POTS replacement, in effect. But I'm very concerned that any rulings unfavorable to Vonage will also be taken as precedent and applied to every other VoIP company that wishes to do business in the same jurisdiction.
said by clecrupt9:
Trying to allow companies to advance because you so dislike the current situation may cause even greater problems in the future.
Please explain further, I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.
said by clecrupt9:
Can we agree that some kind of new, hopefully more loose frame work will emerge thats lets these companies stay intact?
I certainly hope so. One thing I do know is that if all this ever gets into a court of law where hard evidence must be produced, AND where the political influence hopefully isn't so great, the state PUC's are going to have an entire omelet on their faces if they try to say that VoIP is no different than wireline phone service. If I were the defense lawyer, I'd bring in a cell phone and a CellSocket, and also an ATA-186 fed from a wireless broadband connection (might have to set up a temporary repeater outside the courtroom), and take a standard phone and plug it into each in turn, and let the judge and/or the jury take turns placing calls on each (or use a speakerphone and just put on a little demonstration). I would then have someone place a call to each in turn, and note that I can receive calls on my own number right in the middle of the courtroom. I would then ask how that would be possible with a standard landline telephone, assuming that I didn't live right next door to the courthouse and have a very good cordless phone.
To my way of thinking, once you get past superficial appearance, there's far more difference between VoIP and wireline telephony than between VoIP and wireless/cellular. | |
| reply to clecrupt9
I guess one main difference between POTS/Cellular and VoIP was pointed out in Jeff Pulver's post in this thread:
»911/when Service Provider does not provide access
If you want to use POTS service, all you need is a phone & phone service from PSTN provider. If you want to use Cellular, all you need is a cellular phone and service from a cellular provider. VoIP service such as P8/Vonage/Voicepulse requires a phone, VoIP service, and broadband service. I think it is pretty clear that VoIP is different... | |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| reply to WhyADuck
Great write up as usually WD. I would also note that "back in the day" the telco's weren't to pleased with VPN either since it would pretty much erase their Frame Relay to FR biz that they had scammed so much out of for years. The Gov didn't regualte VPN and use the profits went to shit for the telco's but now we and them can build/or buy and deploy VPN inferector that works just if you know what your doing. I am see a partern here with the telco's and it does trouble me. Now I'm no big fan as I have said in the past with ILEC's but I don't hate them either. I still have to say that VOIP is WAY to young for the Gov to be stepping in.
Another note here is that your ILEC by law has to have your POTS line up and running last time I checked 99.8% of the time. There's no way for a VOIP company to abid by that, hell not even close. Vonage, P8 etc don't have control over how there users connect to them.
Just my look "again" on the issues at hand.
ym
Spell check not inluded | |
| reply to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:
Now I would hope you would agree that cell phone service is still telecommunications, just an advanced form, to paraphrase what you said. So please explain to me why the cell service provider should be exempt from filing as a CLEC, but the VoIP provider treated as though they were a landline phone service? Why would a regulatory agency assume that the VoIP provider is trying to evade some responsibility when the cell phone provider is totally absolved from most such responsibilities (and was given YEARS to comply with 911 requirements, etc.)?
Wireless companies have rules they operate by, from where the towers can be placed, to the FCC forcing them to complete 911 calls. They must have proper license, trunking and ordering facilities. The telco treats them very much like CLEC's, though they may not have that particular distinction. Again there are all those damn fees an cell service. Roamer1 would probably be the expert here, but the point is you dont just throw up a cell business and shoot for the best, its as complicated to do as a Clec. Also note who owns most cell companies- ILEC's.
I dont know that the VoIP provider should be regulated, I just see some agenda on both sides here and I think somewhere in the middle might be a good place to be.
said by WhyADuck:
I'd be hard pressed to identify what you are calling a "loop" in this context, but couldn't you make the exact same case about cell and wireless phones? Maybe they can't go anywhere in the world, but today they can roam over most of the populated areas of the U.S. There are many things that can be said about a VoIP provider that can also be said about a wireless or cellular company, and CANNOT be said about a landline telephone service - for example, the ability to receive calls on your phone number (directly, without invoking call forwarding) wherever you go.
Again for the cell company I would point to the interconnection agreement they have. The loop is a t-1 most likely. Perhaps DS-2 or above, but probably t-1. Its not physical plant to your house, but a loop none the less. The question of loop extension via IP being information or telecommunications service is what, to me, is the whole argument. Thats all thats happened with Vonage and the others. My outdial in incoming number look just like they always did, but the leg to the subscriber is IP, and thus I can originate and terminate traffic anywhere in the world (really cool). I personally dont know if that feature in and of itself is enough to be information service.
said by WhyADuck:
But most still use the existing, outdated infrastructure of copper pairs. Look, if I had to make a working distinction - and I know this could be considered somewhat arbitrary, but so could many current regulations - what I would say is that if the service requires a dedicated pair of copper wires to the customer's home, and at the point where it enters the interior of the home it's in analog format, then it's plain old telephone service. But if it is delivered over the public Internet, and it is up to the customer to install the conversion device (the ATA-186, for example), and the customer can install this device at any place of his or her choosing as long as an Internet connection of sufficient bandwidth is available, then it's a data service. I realize there's some gray area in between those two positions but since right now nothing's operating in that area (other than ISDN, perhaps, which is considered an unregulated service in many areas anyway), I'm not going to worry about it at the moment.
Yes I see that the ATA is a data devise, however the networks-so far that the POPULAR money making companies have used, are just as much PSTN. You are singling out just the local loop as the distinction for data service. Put it this way I start a LD company. I use the local copper loop to youre house, but everything after that is VoIP, by your definition I am POTS.
"Trying to allow companies to advance because you so dislike the current situation may cause even greater problems in the future"
Well I suppose that looks directed at you, but it was more general in my head. What it means is that just because the current situation in telecom is bad, dont go 90 mph in the other direction because of that. Broadband phone is new, yes it offers great things and has a lot of merit to what it could do for people. But at the same time, we dont really know who these companies are. They may wind up using the same policy the bells do, may wind up buying Washington the same way. It would suck to give them all kinds of special benefits and nothing came of it. Not saying that will happen, just that we shouldnt make drastic moves one way or the other. States included. | |
| said by clecrupt9:
Wireless companies have rules they operate by, from where the towers can be placed, to the FCC forcing them to complete 911 calls. They must have proper license, trunking and ordering facilities. The telco treats them very much like CLEC's, though they may not have that particular distinction. Again there are all those damn fees an cell service. Roamer1 would probably be the expert here, but the point is you dont just throw up a cell business and shoot for the best, its as complicated to do as a Clec. Also note who owns most cell companies- ILEC's.
Okay. But, again, note that the cell companies have a much higher market penetration than any VoIP service. The days when strong regulation of VoIP services becomes necessary may arrive someday, but I would argue that it isn't here yet.
Also, note that to some extent the VoIP providers are customers of CLECs, particularly where incoming calls are concerned, so to that extent the CLEC's have acquired all the necessary licenses and pay the necessary taxes and fees.
said by clecrupt9:
I dont know that the VoIP provider should be regulated, I just see some agenda on both sides here and I think somewhere in the middle might be a good place to be.
The agenda of the VoIP companies is pretty transparent - they want to stay in business! On the other side, it's not so clear who's pulling the strings.
said by clecrupt9:
Yes I see that the ATA is a data devise, however the networks-so far that the POPULAR money making companies have used, are just as much PSTN. You are singling out just the local loop as the distinction for data service. Put it this way I start a LD company. I use the local copper loop to youre house, but everything after that is VoIP, by your definition I am POTS.
Well, I would use a three-pronged test to determine whether something is VoIP as opposed to POTS:
1. The connection enters the interior of the customer premises as pure data, delivered via the Internet. This does not preclude the use of another voice service (e.g. traditional telephone service) and data sharing the same line, but the VoIP must come in over the data portion of the line.
2. The device that converts the data to analog must be installed by the customer at a location of the customer's choosing. Note that a wireless handset that directly links to a wireless Internet service would also be considered this type of device
3. The customer must normally be able to take the device to any other location in the United States where an Internet connection (of sufficient bandwidth) is available and use it there, just as if he were at home.
If the service meets all three tests, it's VoIP. If it fails on any one of the three prongs, it's either POTS or something else that has not yet been defined. Just being in some data format doesn't count if it's not touching the public Internet.
Now, you may object that VoIP technically means "Voice over IP", and the IP part can be on a public or private network. While that's true, what I'm attempting to define specifically is the type of service being offered by Vonage, VoicePulse, and Packet8. Maybe it should not be called VoIP when talking to regulators, or maybe we should just accept the small misuse, even as we accept the term "cable modem" even though there's no "modem" in a cable modem!
said by clecrupt9:
"Trying to allow companies to advance because you so dislike the current situation may cause even greater problems in the future"
Well I suppose that looks directed at you, but it was more general in my head. What it means is that just because the current situation in telecom is bad, dont go 90 mph in the other direction because of that. Broadband phone is new, yes it offers great things and has a lot of merit to what it could do for people. But at the same time, we dont really know who these companies are. They may wind up using the same policy the bells do, may wind up buying Washington the same way. It would suck to give them all kinds of special benefits and nothing came of it. Not saying that will happen, just that we shouldnt make drastic moves one way or the other. States included.
I understand but consider this: Knowing what you know about MCI/Worldcom today, if you had a time machine, would you go back and argue that MCI should be regulated out of business as a very young company? Would you do that knowing that upon your return to the present, daytime calls within your own home state might be priced at 60 or 70 cents a minute?
In case I have not made it crystal clear already, my intent is not to defend Vonage. In my opinion they are harming the industry, first by advertising themselves as a replacement for traditional phone service (thus inviting scrutiny by regulators) and second by letting their customer service slide, which also might make a case for regulation IF and ONLY IF there were no effective competition - which is certainly NOT the case. You may have noticed that in the Minnesota case, much was made of Vonage's marketing, and the fact that they were holding themselves out to the consumer to be a replacement for traditional phone service.
But I am convinced that whatever set of laws Vonage is forced to adhere to will also be applied to the other VoIP companies. It's called precedent - you don't make one set of rules for MCI and a completely different set for Sprint, and regulators won't make one set of rules for Vonage and then start over from scratch when dealing with any other VoIP company. Regulators love "boilerplate" text and cut-and-paste, in case you hadn't noticed.
You can always add regulation later if it is needed, but it's very seldom that regulations get repealed, or even replaced with less burdensome regulations (except at the FCC, but right now we're primarily dealing with state regulators, and as a general rule they love to pile on more regulations). All I am saying is that the industry should be given a little more time to mature before we start saddling it with all sorts of regulations. The Minnesota PUC definitely jumped the gun on this, possibly at the prodding of the ILEC's, probably without giving any consideration whatsoever to the possible unintended consequences of their ruling (such as, extending the monopoly status of the ILEC's for a few additional years). | |
| Funny... after posting the above, I got this:
Random fortune (from law)
The Arkansas legislature passed a law that states that the Arkansas River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little Rock. For some strange reason I thought that was quite appropriate to this discussion.  | |
| reply to WhyADuck
Points well taken.
Good to know Arkansas is standing up to that river for a change.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-24 12:36:42] | |
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:
VoIP companies are offering innovative new features that the traditional phone companies either cannot or will not offer. Features that are simply unavailable to landline telephone users are available from multiple VoIP providers. VoIP is NOT just regular landline phone service.
This is one reason why in my personal opinion, Vonage and the like are not in the same class as normal phone companies -- they are much more akin to an ISP or ESP (enhanced services provider = voicemail providers, some interactive services, etc.) Of course, the fact that Vonage/etc. are more or less treated as ESPs for regulatory purposes is how they can do so much of what they do (they can buy PRIs from LECs of their choice instead of having to "interconnect" with a LEC, they don't have to build or buy [via UNEs or total resale] any facilities to end users, they can offer whatever services they want at whatever prices they want without having to deal with tariffs and other red tape, etc.)
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
|
