Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet Technology News

VoIP Gets A Big Backer And Another Lawsuit 169

Posted by timothy from the be-suspicious-of-buggywhip-makers dept.
Ungrounded Lightning writes "Time Warner Cable has announced plans to roll out a VoIP telephone service. I see two implications. First: ISPs providing VoIP phone service have a competitive advantage over third-party VoIP/PSTN providers (such as Vonage), who must ride on top of a separate broadband subscription for the packet transport. This could lead to consolidation of this industry segment in the hands of ISPs. Second: Cable ISPs have an advantage over Telco DSL operations - where a VoIP offering would cannibalize their own POTS and short-range long-distance revenue. This implies rollout on cable providers first, followed by harder times for telcos, long-distance companies, and third parties." chipperdog writes "In this article it is mentioned that the small rural phone companies in North Dakota are filing a complaint against a local VoIP provider, CallSmart. Interesting to see how this one works out, given what happened in Minnesota a few months ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VoIP Gets A Big Backer And Another Lawsuit More

VoIP Gets A Big Backer And Another Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pbrinich ( 238041 ) * on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:14PM (#7665061)
    I agree that Time Warner (and other, especially cable based ISPs) will have a huge competative advantage over third-party providers. But, in my area TWC is going to be offering VOIP in early next year, but they want to charge 39.95/mo for service that I can get for 25 bucks from vonage and they won't even be offering voice mail initially!

    I think government and telcos need to realized that VOIP can and shouldn't be regulated anymore than any internet-based service. Governments need to find other revenue streams than regulatory fees....just my $.02

    • Re:mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:41PM (#7665231) Journal
      that I can get for 25 bucks from vonage

      Actually, you can get UNLIMITED (North America) for $20 from packet8.net [packet8.net]. Seriously, Packet8 should subcontract all of the independent geeks out there and offer $25/month service with a $5/month comission to the installer. I recently set up a 4-line packet8 system for a partner's (at my employer) home. It is saving him approximately $700/month over PSTN and I'm wishing that I'd get a piece of that aside from the initial fee that I charged...

      It is only a matter of time before the wireless routers out there start building in SIP/2.4ghz cordless phone functionality. I'll laugh if I ever buy a Linksys or Netgear cordless phone.

      Sigh...

      • Re:mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)

        by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @12:43AM (#7665905)
        I remember reading about a mobile phone which would auto-switch to 802.11b if it could. Didnt see it released, though, but it was kind of a good idea (Im sure the technical issues probably killed it, since there really shouldnt be wide open 802.11 connections. Use at least 64-bit WAP, people!)

    • Re:mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpoopon@gmaOOOil.com minus threevowels> on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:57PM (#7665311)
      But, in my area TWC is going to be offering VOIP in early next year, but they want to charge 39.95/mo for service that I can get for 25 bucks from vonage and they won't even be offering voice mail initially!

      Interestingly enough, my provider is offering VoIP in a PARTNERSHIP with Vonage for $25/month (500 LD minutes) or $35/month unlimited. Personally, I think this is the way ALL providers should do it -- partner with a third party company.

    • If my phone was out for days like my Cable and Cable Modem I'd be very pissed and would change providers. As I see it this gives the customer a choice to use one of several options for POTS. In the end what goes over the networks is IP data anyway. X.25 and circuit switches are about gone. How the telco/cable /reseller handles it may affect QOS but for POTS all you really need is a solid 8K bandwidth for the voice. Cable companies who have pulled fiber to the homes have loads of bandwidth to spare and the c

  • Cost savings with VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by charnov ( 183495 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:17PM (#7665080) Homepage Journal
    My office is looking to go to VoIP since we are in the planning stages of a move. The estimated cost savings is around $6000 per month for less than 150 people. The drawback is we would be ditching our entire phone system (and phones) and purchasing new equipment (we are talking about $60K at least). No decision has been made yet.

    The other added benefit is that I would be responsible for phone traffic, also, in that it would be routed through the normal network. More job security...heh.
    • ROI seems excellent. Now it's all about risk management, isn' t it? :)

    • Re:Cost savings with VoIP (Score:5, Funny)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:01PM (#7665335)
      The other added benefit is that I would be responsible for phone traffic, also, in that it would be routed through the normal network. More job security...heh.
      Even better, no more calls during the middle of weekend when the network goes down!

    • Re:Cost savings with VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anml4ixoye ( 264762 ) * on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:22PM (#7665453) Homepage

      We did a VOiP rollout. We are a 6,000 person local government agency that is in the middle of a rollout. It is great - we are using the phones from Cisco and we have a tremendous ROI.

      Of course, it does help that we have a Gigabit backbone. But I have seen some of our telecom guys walking around with a phone from Cisco that is an IPPhone when in range of a WAP for our network, and a regular cell-phone otherwise. Pretty sweet.

      If anyone wants more info, you can email me at foyc at hillsboroughcounty dot org

      • Re:Cost savings with VoIP (Score:5, Informative)

        by doogles ( 103478 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:31PM (#7665508)
        But I have seen some of our telecom guys walking around with a phone from Cisco that is an IPPhone when in range of a WAP for our network, and a regular cell-phone otherwise. Pretty sweet.

        No you didn't.

        The Cisco 7920 Wireless IP Phone [cisco.com] does not at this time do anything but 2.4GHz 802.11b. It has no cell phone functionality, although this has been discussed as a possible next-generation product direction (as well as some possible OEM agreements with PDA makers).

        This phone is a pretty solid product, albeit a little light on battery life. This comment is ironic, as the original delays on the product (to the tune of about 10 months) while Cisco worked on the battery life.

        There are two main competitors in the Wireless IP Space:
        • The Cisco 7920 Wireless IP Phone does not at this time do anything but 2.4GHz 802.11b

          You may be right about this. They may have said that it is supposed to do that in the future, and I thought they meant now. Though we do spend a *lot* of money on Cisco, so they may have had a beta phone. If I find out more I will post it

    • So it'll save you $6k/mo, and it'll cost $60k to install. What's the holdup? It'll pay for itself in less than a year, I'd go for it, as long as the protocol is something that'll be around for a while.
    • Well if those estimets are correct then you'd be in the black in under one fiscal year, from then on in you'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

      Any manager who saw those figures and decided to NOT go with VOIP is either a moron, in bed with the telco, or there's some other costs you're not including (support, support personell for the VOIP hardware, etc).
    • There is nothing turn-key that will do much more than dialtone. If you want specialized services that are resilient, super scalable, and integrated, you are talking bleeding edge development. Convergence, while inevitable, is not something you can just order up, like so much lobster flown in from Maine on the UPS redball express...

      The guys who do it right will end up on top. I think companies with broadband infrastructure in place will have an advantage; Telcos, LD and Cable companies.

      So, when your web
    • Ok...I probably should have been more thorough talking about my situation. We currently have $200K of digital PBX equipment tied to a T1 that is our phone system. The system cannot handle VoIP. Our phones are older digital phones that cannot handle VoIP directly (switching systems that translate from VoIP to this model exist but the system becomes unreasonably complex and service contracts are involved). So we have a good, working system that does what we want. The idea of going VoIP is that we can route ou

  • Maybe I'm stupid... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:17PM (#7665082)
    But isn't "short-range long-distance revenue" an oxymoron?
    • You'd think so, but when it's a long distance call from the south side of Chicago to the North side, that's short-range long-distance. And ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as having to still dial a "1" to make that call. You'd think the telcos coud get equipment smart enough to know that when I dial 10 digits, it's a long distance call. (OT pet peeve #12993002)
      • But dialing ten digits does not make a call long-distance. Dialing 718-xxx-xxxx from the 212 area code is a local call.

        The "1 is a toll call prefix" was used in some places. 1-xxx-xxxx and 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx. It helped people with the surprises on their phone bills. It's been depracated for a while.

        And don't get me started on "local toll" calls.

  • Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phrack ( 9361 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:17PM (#7665085)
    Second: Cable ISPs have an advantage over Telco DSL operations - where a VoIP offering would cannibalize their own POTS and short-range long-distance revenue.

    So when your cable service is interrupted, you can't call 'em to tell 'em you lost your TV signal! Think of the money they'll save on customer no-service!

    • Who do you call when your telephone service goes out?

      They'll notice that they're suddenly not getting calls from a given area. If it's just you, you use your neighbors phone. And if you don't have a neighbor, well, you don't have cable either.
    • This is a real issue since Telco cusomter service is highly regulated - they have to fix your phone - whereas the Cable Guy is not held to the same standard.
  • Is there any technical problem providing a service using Wireless in Local Loop(basically a cordless phone with the base unit at the telco)? They could provide phone service and wireless internet service. Are there any bandwidth restrictions in the US? It seems like a simple concept and i've seen WLL phones in India.

  • So? Cable is unreliable (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pctainto ( 325762 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:19PM (#7665094) Homepage
    Whenever there is a storm, my cable goes out before the power ever does. Cable also tends to go out at random times. Why would I want to change to VOIP when I'm not insured that cable will always be available -- especially since a POTS system is much, much, much more reliable.

    • Re:So? Cable is unreliable (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      rofl. pots is more reliable? i think you just have crappy cable.

      i have comcast that stays up pretty much all the time. its been down like twice in 31/2 years. plus i get better than dial-up or dsl speeds (3.5x1, yay). and i actually pull those speeds.

      i also work for a major DSL ISP/POTs provider (yeah, i dont have it, that should say something) and trust me POTs is NOT more reliable than cable. its down all the time and is usually effected much more so by weather than wonderful cable.

      at any rate i no lon
      • I haven't tried VOIP or anything like that but POTS is more reliable than cable in my area. My "low-speed cable" goes down once in a while. Maybe it might be my area but I have certainly noticed it. Having said that, I have no idea how DSL is. I have not had DSL for long periods of time.

        Also, one other thing... I use the internet a lot. I am pretty much on it many hours (especially since I'm unemployed :( ). Telephone on the other hand is only used occasionally (a few calls once in a while). So maybe I
        • I used to have DSL through Qwest, and now have a cable modem with Cox. I'll take cable any day. I also had DSL through Covad and Flashcom back when they were in business.

          DSL with Covad and/or Flashcom was superbly reliable. Not as fast as cable, but I never, ever, had any problems with it.

          When I moved and Covad couldn't service me, I went with Qwest DSL. Big mistake. The connection was always reliable, but the problem was the ISP was not. Who was the ISP? MSN of all companies. Never again will I e

    • Why would I want to change to VOIP when I'm not insured that cable will always be available -- especially since a POTS system is much, much, much more reliable.

      Probably because of the price difference.

      For example, you might:

      • decide that saving $20/month (or more) offsets the decrease (if any) in reliability ;
      • be looking for a secondary line primarily for use by your adolescent children, and maybe the price difference v. the ILEC's offering offsets the perceived reliability issue in that case ;
      • have s

  • does cable really have an advantage? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bunyip ( 17018 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:19PM (#7665095)
    I'm not convinced that cable really has an advantage over the phone company. The cable company doesn't get 7*24 at all...

    If it rains, we have an outage.

    If the weather's hot, we have an outage.

    If our cat farts within ten feet of the modem, we have an outage.

    Yes, I like my cable modem for the download speed, but I won't give them my phone service anytime soon. Calling tech support is often an exercise in futility.

    BTW - I have no land line, my wife and I use wireless only. It's not as reliable as a land line, but it's actually cheaper and works pretty damn well.

    Alan.
    • This depends a lot on your cable company.

      Where I am, the Comcast plant, ex-MediaOne, is in good shape, and well maintained. I get phone service off of it and reliability is better than VeriZontal's. This is not VoIP, just TDM/FDM cable telephony. The cable modem's pretty reliable too, though there are sometimes outage -- most often upstream, getting to the Internet backbone. On the other hand I've known cable systems whose raison d'etre seemed to be to make VeriZontal look good. It doesn't hurt that I'
    • The submitter assumes that the phone companies want their POTS and long-distance revenue. The problem with that kind of revenue is getting it (maintaining the networks) is expensive. The question is, will they get as much PROFIT by switching to VoIP, which I would argue they would, so there's no real advantage for cable there.

      As for reliability, I Can't remember the last time my cable TV was out, although my cable modem had its issues until they installed a booster - the frequency your cable modem signal
  • From the CallSmart site: "Make sure your caller ID is unblocked. We use your caller ID to authenticate your account when you call." Has anyone else not heard of spoofing caller id? [2600.com]

  • competition? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:25PM (#7665135)
    Well, it seems to me that this at the very least provides some valuable competition to the phone monopolies. Unfortunately, capitalism being what it is, it seems fairly likely to me that either VoIP or phone (probably VoIP) will eventually destroy the other, and unless we get more competition in the ISP market we'll just end up with another monopoly.

    I could be wrong, but I think that one of capitalism's biggest problems is industries that require a large infrastructure. I know that socialist approaches to most things tend to be less efficient (due to the lack of competition), but in a case like this I think it's better, since to get REAL competition we need multiple infrastructures reaching every single house, the cost of which of course would still get passed on to the consumer.
    • I could be wrong, but I think that one of capitalism's biggest problems is industries that require a large infrastructure. I know that socialist approaches to most things tend to be less efficient (due to the lack of competition), but in a case like this I think it's better, since to get REAL competition we need multiple infrastructures reaching every single house, the cost of which of course would still get passed on to the consumer.

      But isn't the purpose in competition consumer benefit? Actually, competi

      • The problem is that natural monopolies frequently raise prices above economically-optimal to the profit-maximizing price point. There is no viable alternative for the consumer, so they can only choose between being gouged and doing without.

  • first of all (Score:4, Funny)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil&politrix,org> on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:26PM (#7665143) Homepage Journal
    a VoIP offering would cannibalize their own POTS


    I think Cheech would like VoIP. I mean tihnk about it who doesn't cannibus tehir own pots or place cannibus in POTS or something.
    When I finish smoking tihs doob I'll come back to this post dude.

  • Nobody wins yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:27PM (#7665149) Homepage
    I don't think the analysis is correct. Right now, nobody has a true upper hand.
    • Cable ISPs have no experience running a teleco, but they have a marginal technical advantage over a non-ISP VoIP provider simply because of better network routing
    • ILEC DSL ISPs (the phone company) can sell you a pure DSL connection without canabalizing their existing market simply because they will use VoIP instead of a splitter.
    • CLEC DSL ISPs (Covad) benefit simply because they don't need the phone company do to the splitter anymore.
    • Pure VoIP providers benefit because they have no fear of canabalization and they've already started. With the CLECs, they share the benefit of being folks who generally don't have people who have been mad at them since the 80s when the cable was always out of service and ma bell was busy screwing you over.

    • Re:Nobody wins yet... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stacko ( 673397 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:38PM (#7665206)

      Cable ISPs have no experience running a teleco, but they have a marginal technical advantage over a non-ISP VoIP provider simply because of better network routing

      Actually, I think that, by owning the network end point (i.e. the consumer VoIP gateway) as well as all of the switching fabric between the end point and the VoIP-to-POTS gateway, the ISP has a substantial advantage in terms of quality of service.

      Think about it this way: by using the QoS features that come with the switches, the ISP could guarantee a much better user experience for their customers, while third-party VoIP providers would have to trust best effort. (In fact, if they ISPs are less-than-moral, they could also use QoS on their network to ensure that they had better voice quality than any competitors that also rode their network.)

    • Customers who are already used to sending them money every month.
  • If the CallSmart system has to pay these fess, any other tone prompted computer callin PBX should have to qualify as well...that's essentially all CallSmart is.

    As a US citizen I am both pissed off, and embarrased this is how my country is helping us "advance" telco technology and telco business models.

    -Pete
    • As a US citizen I am both pissed off, and embarrased this is how my country is helping us "advance" telco technology and telco business models.

      Are you embarassed enough to do something about it beyond complaining? If not, consider yourself part of the problem.
    • Well, no; CallSmart is pushing the rules, quite obviously and quite openly.

      Under FCC guidelines (not formally "rules" yet, a phone to phone nonlocal call that crosses state lines is properly treated as long distance, whether or not it happens to use IP, ATM, or smoke signals in the middle of it. The local phone companies are thus allowed to charge "switched access" charges, rather than local; for a rural company, those charges can be quite stiff. CallSmart is claiming that their phone-to-phone service is

  • cable's core business could be attacked as well (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bob_calder ( 673103 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:29PM (#7665157) Homepage Journal
    If a baby bell gets together with local broadcast stations to distribute free over-air digital tuners, cable operators will lose their core business. They reached max penetration several years ago and have been casting about for revenue sources. One thing they tried was an alliance with broadcasters for central services. It was damaged by nonlinear insertion and cheap storage availability.

    Take the number of stations within sixty miles of you and double it. That's the approximate number of sources of free programming. The advertising revenue will come back into the community too. You can subscribe to specialized stuff on broadband. Wrestling, Celebrity sports, E!, all the shit you so desperately need.
    • If a baby bell gets together with local broadcast stations to distribute free over-air digital tuners, cable operators will lose their core business.

      Why? Digital TV just gets you the same channels that are already available in analog broadcasts. The fact that so few people watch analog broadcast TV should tell you that people aren't satisfied with those channels. And why would Baby Bells give away TV tuners?

      Take the number of stations within sixty miles of you and double it.

      Are you saying that digital
      • The end of the timetable for broadcasters to convert to digital has come. Virtually everybody is on the air now. The reach is better although the tower has to be high. Stations with owners who have brains have been putting in new or extending them for several years. The bandwidth the government has GIVEN the industry is enough for one HD or two standard definition (D1 or whatever) streams of data. Thus double the number of choices. They have a huge issue to deal with. They are at the end of a financial situ
      • Why? Digital TV just gets you the same channels that are already available in analog broadcasts. The fact that so few people watch analog broadcast TV should tell you that people aren't satisfied with those channels. And why would Baby Bells give away TV tuners?

        Yeah, who even watches local TV anymore except retirees who don't have cable? The only channels I ever watch anymore are Sci-Fi, Discovery, and TLC. I'd just laugh if the local phone monopoly tried pushing TV tuners that could only receive the lo
  • I understand why phone companies see a threat in VoIP providers, but they shouldn't. Maybe they'll experiment some looses during the time the hype is high, but later on things should be roughly back to normal (or even better, thanks to better marketing and competition strategies).

    That's because a lot of customers using VoIP for international phone calls wouldn't make those calls using conventional phone services anyway. I know I wouldn't. If VoIP was not available, and I need to keep in touch often with
    • I understand why phone companies see a threat in VoIP providers, but they shouldn't. Maybe they'll experiment some looses during the time the hype is high, but later on things should be roughly back to normal...

      Things may get back to normal for the industry as a whole, but the telcos will not survive the transition to VoIP due to their massive amount of capital assets which are becoming increasingly worthless.
      • people had the same attitude about IBM?

        Everybody has to ride their (telco) depreciating capital assets to get from here to there. VOIP uses the same infrastructure unless new infrastructure has *magically* appeared. ;-) harmless jest, OK?

        The Cable infrastructure is not maintained at the same level of the phone company. That's why people complain a lot.
  • Thinks like this have happend before. Right now, we have things like Direct TV. Cable TV isn't dead. I know that it's a little different but both types of the same service will have their followers.

  • It's all economics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:46PM (#7665257)
    In a small business you typically need lots of phone lines. VoIP offers you several for a fraction of the cost. It costs about $100 per line and with 12 lines that's $1,200 per month. VoIP offers significantly cheaper prices.

    I'm not sure if the price difference is really warranted because the technology behind your old-style phones is fairly mature. It seems like they're gouging you out of pure greed because of the monopolistic control phone companies have.

    Or local Verizon in my area is about $35 for no-frills nothing service.

    Compare that with my cellular verizon service which is about the same price except with voicemail, caller ID, "free" longdistance because they must remain competitive with other cellular carriers.

    VoIP is a frightening technology and I would prefer if it was avoided. But when you're a struggling small business and are looking at reversing your cash flow hundreds of dollars per month you really don't have any choice at all.
    • If the infrastructure is good, then you can do it. I had a five line office and would NEVER subject my customers to even good VOIP quality. To me a high committment to customers means they should feel that they are sitting next to you. So it would have to be rally rally superb. Like up around 41mhz. Well, maybe not that good, but you get the picture.

  • There is no Altruism in VOIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tintruder ( 578375 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @10:50PM (#7665280)
    Current FCC regulations leave a big loophole for IP-based services.

    Taxes that apply to current voice tariffed services do not apply to "data" services the same way.

    Since all the carriers are actually carrying most, if not all of their "voice" traffic by the same methods, on the same kind of equipment as "data", there is money to be made carrying voice but calling it data.

    Very little infrastructure remains circuit switched and is now packet switched like data. Much of this was driven by the requirements for pumping a bunch of traffic over fiber; WDM, DWDM etc.

    Now the efforts are clearly to pave the way for providers to pocket the difference or most of it; this difference being the amounts charged to the customer which are turned over to the government as taxes.

    If you pay $100 per month for "voice" services and $30 of that is taxes, and you switch to VOIP for $85 without taxes, you save $15 at the same time the provider makes an additional $15.

    And this doesn't even address the investment tax credits and "cost of doing business" deductions the providers enjoy for building up the ability to offer new services.

    So what we have is a bunch of people angling for position in the inevitable VOIP fray.

    Some are clearly innovators.

    Some want to be first just to stake a claim for later work.

    Some have deep pockets but nothing else to offer. So they are about to expend massive legal fees and efforts to keep others out of the game.

    If you can't innovate; Litigate.

    The end result will ultimately be that the average customer spends about the same as they do right now. How the fees are assessed will look different, but the bottom line will be pretty much the same.

    The providers will then benefit or fail based upon how successful their legal tactics were in creating, sustaining or closing tax loopholes in order to benefit their bottom line.

    There is no altruism in the move to VOIP.

  • Cheaper to run, but same quality? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by panaceaa ( 205396 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:02PM (#7665336) Homepage Journal
    We just got Cisco IP phones at my work. I notice that when I talk on them I can't hear my own voice in the headset. With normal phones I can always hear myself back. Especially when I blow into the receiver. Maybe with normal phones there's an echo from the electronics looping around... but I like it! It makes me feel like my voice is going into the network.

    With the IP phones I lose my train of thought because I feel like I'm talking to myself rather than into a phone. It weirds me out. Do all IP phones take away the echo, or is it just the kind we have?

    • Re:Cheaper to run, but same quality? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the 'echo' you hear in POTS phones is called 'sidetone', and it is intentional. I didn't know that IP phones don't have sidetone.
    • I have always disliked VOIP for that reason. I used for three years from 1999. I found that it hindered the small noises you get from people that signal things like emotion. That would be due to filtering and smaple rate limit I suppose. ??

      It is possible that being able to hear yourself is linked to speech patterns. I understand that stuttering may be related to this in some strange way.
    • Talk to your VoIP administrator. There should be an option to turn on sidetone and maybe even an option for "comfort noise" so the phone doesn't sound too quiet when no one is speaking.

  • POTS won't die for a while... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pdaoust007 ( 258232 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:03PM (#7665340)
    As exited as I am to see Internet services such as VoIP become mainstream, part of me still thinks that POTS will still be here for a while.

    A couple of things to consider:

    - You need broadband and not everybody has it, can get or will ever want it
    - Cable and DSL (especially cable according ot my own experience) are definitely not as stable as POTS. They are next to useless when power is out unless you AND you proveider have UPS
    - Emergency services are still an issue with VoIP. I'm expecting the first headline about someone dying because 911 wasn't available on VoIP anytime now.
    - There is still no end to end QoS on VoIP. Home gateways are still too dumb to prioritize VoIP trafficover your Pr0n traffic.
    • Before someone starts including TC on a Linux router with a pretty interface/enclosure. It's already pretty damn simple with the Arbitrator [bandwidtharbitrator.com] which (thankfully) the source is open to some extent. I'm sure someone else has come [netsoft.co.za] up [lbsd.net] with [sourceforge.net] something [fr.ee] (that is if you don't like cisco/3com or other hardware based systems.)

      I don't see how this apparently diverse market of Free/cheap QoS is going to somehow limit VoIP? End to end QOS is necessary, so ISPS will provide it, Why? Because your ISP will be your provide
    • Emergency services are still an issue with VoIP. I'm expecting the first headline about someone dying because 911 wasn't available on VoIP anytime now

      To heck with 911 availability. As mentioned by many, power outages aren't friendly to cable. In fact, they're not friendly to the internet at all.

      Telephone lines have a voltage to them, which means that unless the phone line is severed, even having no power doesn't mean you can't call out.

      The scenario I see is that somebody is *fixing* a bad wire, whate
    • Home gateways are still too dumb to prioritize VoIP trafficover your Pr0n traffic.

      Or vice versa..

      "damnit grandma, I can't talk right now, it's interfering with a *very* important download.."

  • Cable companies != common carrier. Beware. (Score:5, Informative)

    by clustercrasher ( 675663 ) * on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:07PM (#7665360)
    It is a little known fact that cable companies were ruled as not common carriers. That means that customers have very little protection from lack of service, privacy issues... Once we allow them to provide phone service without those protections we will erode those rights even further. $20/month for a phone line is a good deal. Do you think that will last if the phone companies are driven under?
    • The common carrier sword cuts both ways. The law also limits liability of a common carrier. If the cable company gets into VOIP, they will have unlimited liability if they drop a 911 call and somebody dies. They probably fought for years to stay away from the responsibilities, but they will scream for protection soon.

      It also means they will have to invest in updating their rotting infrastructure. Also, those little booster boxes will have to have batteries for backup.

  • Sprint and MCI [anonymized] (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They'll be providing some of the back-end service for this (as opposed to them being in the foreground). Time Warner wants this under their name. I've been involved with this for a bit because a number of the large servers I sysadmin (which are local telco boxes) have been involved in adaptations for this project. Should be interesting.
    • I was under the impression that all of the VoIP traffic was going to be transit'ed over either the Time Warner Telecom Network or the Aol Data Transit Network.

      Now, I'm not sure who's going to do the final VoIP-> POTS integration, or who's handling that...but it was my understanding that Time Warner was going to piggyback this on their DOCSIS network -- one of the reasons they they bumped up RoadRunner to 3 Megs Up/Down bandwidth.

      From a Technician's stand point, I really hope that before Time Warner goe

  • VoIP in office setting (Score:3, Informative)

    by wchao ( 175420 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:25PM (#7665470)
    We actually use VoIP at my office: www.microoffice.us/slashdot [microoffice.us]. It works reasonably well and allows us to provide an extremely cost-effective office suite package (office space, phone, high-speed Internet, mail, meeting spaces, etc...) to our customers. Our customers are primarily solo entrepreneurs (e.g., consultants and freelancers) and very small businesses who are price-conscous.

    You really have to be careful about the data network though. We have near-dedicated bandwidth from our data provider, which is why quality is good. Forget about trying to serve business class users with VoIP over cable modem or DSL -- the quality goes to hell when someone tries to download a large file. The QoS really has to take place upstream of you (at the point of the bottleneck). Otherwise it doesn't achieve much.

  • VoIP: No Excise Taxes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brown Line ( 542536 ) on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:28PM (#7665490)
    Don't forget that VoIP has a huge price advantage over "plain old telephone service": it's immune to local excise taxes. Take a look at your phone bill some time and you'll see how much of it goes to your local municipality: those are dollars that can be split between the customer and the carrier.

    I'm curious to see what alliances will be formed: local governments and the phone company on the same side for once, against cable providers and possibly the FCC. It could be a real dog fight.

  • Why have a landline at all? (Score:3, Informative)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <[slashdot] [at] [keirstead.org]> on Monday December 08, 2003 @11:36PM (#7665545)
    I ditched my landline 6 months ago and haven't looked back. I get tons of free features I didnt get with my landline ( like caller id, etc ), no solicitations at all (isn't this even illegal?), and I can take my phone with my where ever I go (or leave it at home if I don't want to be disturbed).

    And to boot, its all about 10 bucks cheaper / month than the landline was ( 300 anytime minutes + unlimited evening and weekend + unlimited long distance - who uses more than 300 minutes during the weekdays? You're probably at work and using the company phone).

    Seriously I don't know why people bother with landlines. The solicitations alone were enough to drive me away.
  • Take a look at this review of a home VOIP Gateway by D-Link used in an ATT Beta test.

    http://www.bigbruin.com/html/dlinkdvg1120.htm

    The tester had a home cable connection where he saw nearly 6000k download rate and almost 1000k upload until he plugged in the gateway.

    Simply plugging it in ate up 700k of download speed.

    But the real killer came when he actually USED the phone:

    Download=75K

    Upload=39k

    Basically, the use of VOIP ate up 99% of the bandwidth of a very fast connection.

    For those with the

  • If there are problems with service these guys will get dumped for bad service and thier customers will get thier normal phone service again. I doubt that thier are enough people that will switch to run ma bell out of town anytime soon.

    Also if your worried as a business for service get 2 diffrent access providers. I bet that will get you security in your phone system. Especially where I live phone lines are on poles and tend to get hit by trees in storms. Data lines however are underground and not nearly as

  • The only choice for consumers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by appleLaserWriter ( 91994 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @12:16AM (#7665768)
    In the business marketplace, VOIP makes sense for just about everyone. Any serious business is likely to be using a mix of frame for Voice and Fiber for data at the moment, VOIP allows this to all be consolidated into fiber pipes. This works well for the vendor because fiber is cheap to install and provision compread with DS1/DS3.

    At the consumer end of the spectrum, copper works fine for voice calls, and is required for DSL. So there is no clear advantage for VOIP over DSL. But with cable, the TV line that has already been expanded to carry data can now carry voice. Big win for cable network owners.

    I don't really care though, I've been a cell user for years. Would be nice if Nokia could work on the stability of the 3650 though :)
  • Hey, let's use our garbage grade DSL or cable modem for voice service! The quality is abysmal but who cares! It's only $49.95 a month.

    Go to your telco and actually pay for at least a PRI people.
  • I don't have much experience with cable modems, but what I've seen is that latencies can be highly variable. This is really bad for VoIP.

    I have two high-speed circuits and I am a Vonage subscriber. My main router box is configured to use the DSL route for voice; the wireless link gave me too much drop-out.

    Is my experience with Cable circuits atypical, or have others experienced the same thing. And is anybody using a VoIP service over cable who can report?

  • Critical 911 services...over cable? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @01:16AM (#7666014) Journal
    It will be interesting to see how cable companies handle 911 and other emergency services (hospitals, government agencies etc.).

    This is really why (aside from reasonable rates for customers) that the Telcos are regulated - and fined heavily if they screw it up.

    Dialtone uptimes will be hard to manage for current cable networks - given the current traffic patterns as well as the poor scalability vis-a-vis DSL.

    Finally, don't worry about the Telcos; most if not all of them are already leveraging these new technologies in various creative ways to make copper wire a value added proposition into the forseable future. Don't overlook SDSL rollouts over the horizon - and who knows what is on the drawing boards. Given that copper wire touches more homes than cable - who do you think is really in a better position to take advantage of broadband communications of all types in the long term? Who do you think critical government agencies and emergency services are going to trust with their external communications gateways?

    I will leave those answers as an exercise for the user...
  • I live in the Omaha area, and here Cox provides VoIP service. Here [cox.com] is a FAQ that is interesting to read how customers should see this service.

    This [com.com] is also a good reference from CNet.

  • VoIP: Been there, Done that, Welcome to Canada. (Score:3, Informative)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @02:17AM (#7666277) Homepage
    D'yall know that Canada's Telus has been migrating to VoIP for all its long-distance traffic since July 2002 [telus.com]? And that it has launched business service to Ontario and Quebec as of November [telus.com]?

    VoIP is already here... it's just that the USA lags leading telco providers by about three years!
    • I suppose I'd better emphasize this part, because everyone seems to think VoIP is something involving home computers or special telephones:

      TELUS -- ONE OF CANADA'S MAIN TELCOS -- USES VOIP FOR ALL ITS LONG DISTANCE TRAFFIC.

      If you are in BC, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, or whereever else Telus operates, and you place a long-distance call, that call is done using VoIP.

      It's live, it's working, it's got QoS guarantees up the wazoo, and it's been here for at least a year.
    • this article is about last mile VoIP. does Telus offer that? missing the point, are you?

  • Why Minnesota? (Score:3, Funny)

    by cyril3 ( 522783 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @02:24AM (#7666304)
    Interesting to see how this one works out, given what happened in Minnesota a few months ago.

    Not knowing what you were talking about I did a quick search on Minnesota and you're right. This is the most exciting event in the history of the World compared to what has happened in Minnesota in the past few months.

  • When I was with TW in upstate NY, they were already offering VoIP phone service and the customers loved it ... those that could actually get it. They limited the offering to (if I remember correctly) 5,000 customers and you had to live in a _very_ particular area (sufficient emergency backup power was the key issue.) The consensus was that we were offering the service back then (5 years ago?) so that when the technology evolved, TW would already have experience with it and (supposedly) be in a better place

  • The Big Win (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sysadmn ( 29788 ) <sysadmn AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 09, 2003 @09:03AM (#7667340) Homepage
    A cable company competes on two fronts: entertainment and the higher-margin data services. The big win for TW is not that this allows them to compete more effectively with DSL providers; it's that you can't (yet? ever?) do this over a Satellite connection. That allows them maintain price on the entertainment offerings and keeps customers loyal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close