Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet United States Your Rights Online

FCC Insists Feds Should Regulate VoIP 173

Posted by timothy from the divine-right-of-kings dept.
prostoalex writes "FCC Chairman Michael Powell insists federal officials should be the only ones regulating VoIP, as trusting the Internet phone regulations to states would result in patchwork of conflicting legislature. Powell is a strong proponent of VoIP (and a Skype user), and considers it the technology that ignites (not competes with) telecom industry. Research shows that fewer than 1 mln Americans use VoIP today, but that's expected to increase 12x by 2009."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Insists Feds Should Regulate VoIP More

FCC Insists Feds Should Regulate VoIP

Comments Filter:

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:03PM (#10570869) Journal
    To do so, Powell said, "is to dumb down the Internet back to the limited vision of government officials. That would be a tragedy."

    A government official who admits that the government's "vision" is screwed up?

    First, Microsoft is not as evil as they could be [slashdot.org].

    And now, FCC actually wants to help the users?

    Next you'd be telling me there are no dupes on Slashdot.

    What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?

    Sheesh!

    And now, I'm getting a first post too?

    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)

      by hondo77 ( 324058 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:06PM (#10570896) Homepage

      What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?

      I guarantee you that Michael Powell is not the second coming of Christ.

    • Is it just me that thinks that Michael Powell looks like he could be related to Tony Soprano?

      -- This SIG is FCC complaiant.

    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
      Yeah well ... pigs fly now and then you know. Usually because they've been pushed off a roof, but still.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

      by shigelojoe ( 590080 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:33PM (#10571103)
      Next you'd be telling me there are no dupes on Slashdot.

      What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?

      I wonder how many /.-ers would say "OMG Dupe!!" after the second coming of Christ. ;)
    • What's this, the second coming of Christ or something?

      No. It clearly isn't, yet, since Duke Nukem Forever hasn't gone gold.

      If that happens start praying.

    • yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @10:09PM (#10572069) Homepage Journal
      The FCC is looking for any justification to perpetuate its political power. With technology advances and concentration of corporate broadcast ownership, both of which further the agenda of Republicans like Chairman Powell, they need to secure other bases for their control. The old "less government for more people" rhetoric is classic Republican smokescreen for more government. And Powell is playing right according to the playbook.
      • You know, if you really believed in the internet and the power of free and open communications you wouldn't be grumbling like this. What happens when the people in VA say vonage cannot keep subscribers there unless they provide 911 service to every rural customer? Or when MS says they have to pay taxes to the state for every call made here?

        Federal regulations can help industries grow by providing protection from inconsistent laws that may be enacted purely in their own self interest - like making it hard f
        • It is your post that is merely rhetoric - reality doesn't support it. First, if I wanted to make money on the premise that "sex sells", buy a cheap UHF station in NYC, LA, or Chicago, and run 24h porn, I could make a fortune from the ads. But the FCC would swing down on me, with Powell hitting me as hard as he could. But even aside from that obvious flaw in your "free market" myth, the biggest opposition the FCC poses is the huge prices it forces on public bandwidth leases. That keeps broadcasting in the ha
          • if I wanted to make money on the premise that "sex sells", buy a cheap UHF station in NYC, LA, or Chicago, and run 24h porn, I could make a fortune from the ads. But the FCC would swing down on me, with Powell hitting me as hard as he could.

            And this is somehow "new" because... we had all those 24 hr sex stations BEFORE Powell came to the FCC?

            Dude, get a grip - on something other than yourself. Broadcast media under this administration has, until very recently (when the FCC started cracking down BECAUSE T

            • You yap on and on in your dogged defense of the FCC. Are you posting from Rupert Murdoch's PR office? My argument that porn isn't allowed by the FCC to compete was merely an accurate debunking of the post to which I replied, in which the poster claimed the FCC does not prevent anyone from competing. I never claimed it's new - complaining that it isn't new is merely either a strawman argument, or an irrelevant excuse to disagree.

              I further detailed how the FCC controls access to the market, which you merely
              • Of course I won't be leaving New York City to go to your neck of the swamp. There's nobody worth broadcasting to there. Everyone worth talking or working with has already abandoned that sinking Boondocks to the televangelists and chemical corporations.

                Thanks for taking the time to remove [yahoo.com] any [msstate.edu] doubt [hpc.mil] whatsoever [msstate.edu] that you are, in fact [nasa.gov], not only a bigot, but a complete idiot.

                • Congratulations on buying a supercomputer for your third rate [usnews.com] school with our money [taxfoundation.org]. The smart people who made it in California and sold it to you must be very happy. And thanks for hosting a NASA test site too dirty for any state of smart people to have in their backyard (at least 200 miles from yours), though it's a good demonstration of socialism [nasa.gov] working to drag smart people from out of state to prop up a failed society. Offering them the state's 70 miles of beachfront probably helped them ignore the swa

  • Federal regulation + Corporate direction = (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:07PM (#10570899)
    Profit!

    For the corps of course.

    • If regulation happens a certain firm with cash may jump in and say "REGULATE ME PLEASE!!!" because they are closer to conforming with whatever regulations will be passed. This will create a barrier to entry for small guys because they can't afford to comply. Goodbye competition.

      This happened with the Tabacco companies. Let's see what happens here.

  • Fuck regulation! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Digital Avatar ( 752673 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:08PM (#10570908) Journal
    "FCC Chairman Michael Powell insists federal officials should be the only ones regulating VoIP, as trusting the Internet phone regulations to states would result in patchwork of conflicting legislature.

    Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH! VoIP doesn't need regulation. This is nothing more than a cheap attempt by POTS providers to secure their cash cow by regulating the competition to death.

    • I know, used to be an extreme libertarian myself. I think this is a good idea. A bunch of states with regulations would be a huge headache. And no regulation will be fine post-singularity. For now, I really need a good emergency service.

    • Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH! VoIP doesn't need regulation. This is nothing more than a cheap attempt by POTS providers to secure their cash cow by regulating the competition to death.

      The regulations arent just about money, they are also about control. Once you start controlling information, you become extremely powerful. I bet agencies like mpaa and riaa are really pissed that internet had very little government control to begin with.. and they are really trying to change tha

      • Re:Fuck regulation! (Score:5, Funny)

        by wealthychef ( 584778 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:22PM (#10571007)
        But if we don't regulate it, how will we stop terrorists from sending pornography to the children? Save us, FCC!
        • But if we don't regulate it, how will we stop terrorists from sending pornography to the children? Save us, FCC!

          It gets worse. Some of that pornography has embedded steganographic messages ...
          "Don't listen to your parents"


          "Stop cleaning your room"

          "Everything is fine, just fine"

          "Voting is for losers"

          "Go watch TV"
          -kgj
      • This has nothing to do with control in that sense. This has everything to do with maintaining their share of the market. After all, if it _was_ about controlling information, don't you think that those who purvey unpopular opinions would have a hell of a time getting phone service? Ma Bell and Friends seem all too happy to service anybody so long as the check clears.
        • don't you think that those who purvey unpopular opinions would have a hell of a time getting phone service?
          _Everyone_ has a hell of a time getting phone service... Its the universal truth.

        • don't you think that those who purvey unpopular opinions would have a hell of a time getting phone service?

          No, I think that those who purveyed unpopular opinions would be allowed to have their phones and have their calls monitered by those who might be interested in their private conversations, like perhaps the government.

          If the gov. had tighter control of the internet(or do they? ;), such people might have a hard time publishing their opinions on the web, as it is more well-suited for mass distributi

    • What are the real consequences of Not regulating?

      Although I agree that state level regulation is a cluster f**k waiting to happen, it seems unrealistic that regulation could be avoided all together.

      In addition, regulation is a double edged sword. Of course the gov and existing telcos are going to demand their share for whatever reason, but there are inevitable abuses that the average joe/jill user's Mom will have to weather with little to no recourse without regulation.
      • What do you think is going to happen? Do you think that there are high barriers to market entry such that no one else can engage in VoIP services? What's to stop someone else from coming in and kicking ass and taking names if the big names in VoIP get out of line? Even if there were barriers to entry, the answer is _never_ regulation -- but investment in new businesses to break those barriers.

    • Re:Fuck regulation! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:23PM (#10571023) Homepage Journal
      Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH! VoIP doesn't need regulation.

      But then if Comcast launches its own VOIP operator, as they have been rumored to do, and your Vonage/Packet8 calls suddenly experience worse than expected quality of service and inexplicable drops and hiccups, who will you appeal to, but the good ole US gov?

      • Re:Fuck regulation! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Digital Avatar ( 752673 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:30PM (#10571075) Journal

        Any company that were to do as such would be guilty of RESTRAINT OF TRADE. That's already a crime. You don't need 'regulation' to be protected from that...you need a government that enforces its own fucking laws.

        • Re:Fuck regulation! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:39PM (#10571142) Homepage Journal
          Read up Lawrence Lessig. While the telephone networks (and hence DSL lines) are considered to be public service, cable lines are the property of the cable operator.

          Comcast, Adelphia and others did not use the public money to build it, so they do not have to give up control over it. With the broadband rush 5 years ago the ISPs around the States sued the cable companies to open up access for providing ISP services to the residential. No cigar - the cable lines are the property of the cable company, you only have control over your dollars (that you choose to give them or deny them), you do not have control over their content.

          Comcast can do whatever they please.

          • Read up on the definition of Restraint of Trade. We're not talking about requiring them to deliver service to the competition, but impairing the services they have been contracted to deliver simply because the company in question is providing a competing service. Whether they should be required to do business with them in the first place is not relevant.

            • they have been contracted to deliver

              a client access to the internet that allows a client to see the web, get e-mail, etc. It specifically states that the residential and business market can NOT run servers.

              • But we weren't talking about an _end user_ running a server. Try to follow the thread.
                • Vonage and the rest sell you a phone or a sip router (skype will be doing the same soon). These devices sit around and wait for incoming calls, then announce it. IOW, a server. Try to learn about technology.
                  • Any sane VoIP system for end users, such as Vonage, is not in any way server related. It has an appliance or software phone that keeps a continuous but idle connection open to Vonage's servers, and does a periodic heartbeat over that connection. Vonage's servers only push the call notification to the appliance or software phone via a response to that client's outbound connection. It works fine, unmodified and not-specially-configured, behind NAT. It's not a server.
              • "It specifically states that the residential and business market can NOT run servers."

                Not true for business acct's...that's what they are for. At least with Cox that is...my business acct. has no restrictions on running servers, no ports blocked..and no limits of upload or download traffic. With static IP, is only about $70/mo. Even comes with low level SLA, and great tech support where they call ME back when I have a problem and leave a message. Look into it....and they don't even ask for any kind of pro

            • If this was enforced the tech software industry would have gone out of business years ago.

              I don't see how telephony will be any different.
              • If this was enforced the tech software industry would have gone out of business years ago.

                ???? Industry being who? Microsoft?

                The issue would be whether Comcast in this hypothetical instance would be allowed to use their ownership of the lines to expand their monopoly into VOIP. If that happens, you I think it would be restraint of trade (IANAL, of course).

                Now, regarding the FCC and VOIP regulation.

                I do agree that if the states regulate it, it will be horrible-- any VOIP provider will have to ensure

            • Re:Fuck regulation! (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Trolan ( 42526 )
              As long as Unnamed ISP has no legal ties to the VoIP carrier which is being theoretically impacted in this case, I don't see how Restraint of Trade comes into it, unless you bring market coverage %age into it. If they don't wish to transit traffic across their network, they really aren't legally obligated to. The end-user ToS already has stipulations resrtaining what their ISP will allow on their connection, so it would be easy enough to leverage that to snip out VoIP traffic as being 'detrimental to gene

              • You have this right on.

                ROT does not apply here. This is no different than a Mall owner being selective about what shops come in to sell at their premise. They may prohibit other companies from offering direct electricity as they want to sell it to the companies located in the mall.

                Comcast (and other cable companies) sells you the right to access the internet, but with their provisos. They do not have to give total cart blanche to it. In fact they have clauses that you may not use a server. This condition

            • We're not talking about requiring them to deliver service to the competition, but impairing the services they have been contracted to deliver simply because the company in question is providing a competing service.

              The problem is, they haven't agreed contractually to provide any given quality of service for any given protocols. Except, maybe, for WWW and email.

              And also any agreement that the typical home user gets probably also says that the cable company can change the offerings w/out warning, at will.
          • Isnt it great when someone makes a comment that looks like a real biting attack and they get modded up but the posts that refutes their position doesn't?
          • Rather than have any government body jump in and lay down a bunch of regs, I would prefer to let Comcast screw with VoIP and then, if necessary, see a class action lawsuit play itself out to establish what they can or can't legally do. What's more, I wish they would let the tax base provided by phone companies die rather than perpetuating it. I'm not against taxation itself, but the more it gets divided up into little pieces, the greater is the overhead of metering and collecting it. We should be moving tow
      • You pay for a service, the service should be provided to you. (of course you've read the terms on which the service is provided to you)

        This doesn't just apply to government regulated services of course.
        • You pay for a pipe with advertised bandwidth that's not guaranteed. If you look at the TOS of any residential cable operator, you'll find a whole lot of loopholes that were left there for legal purposes, so that no one can sue for lack of bandwidth or longer than expected downtime.
      • Not to mention the way the state are going to try to jump in and bleed the industry with state-level regulation (taxation). On the one hand states (if no federal regulation exists) will be taking TONS of complaints (who are you going to turn to?) as less reputable companies try to cash in on VOIP and on the other you'll have politicians eyeing VOIP as an untapped source of new revenue (or old telcom tax replacement, whatever).
    • Of course regulation is a terrible idea, but it's while decentralization is usually better at creating a better variety of policies, in this case it's much better to have the Feds who have half a clue in charge rather than 50+ sets of state regulators who've got even less of a clue and who are totally in bed with the local telcos, and who'll make it difficult to build nationwide communications systems, much less global ones.

      Most of the POTS providers are also trying to get into the VOIP game, because that'

    • Re:Fuck regulation! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 )
      *does best impression of parent poster*

      *cough*

      BRING BACK OIL TRUSTS

      MEDIA ISNT DEREGULTATED ENOUGH. RUPERT MURDOCH ONLY OWNS 100 JAZILLION STATIONS

      PRICEFIXING IS THE PRICE NOBODIES PAY FOR NOT BEING RICH

      and the classic:

      THE MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. MINIMUM WAGE LAWS KEEP WAGES LOW!!!!

      sigh

      Right here in Chicago, DSL is tough to get in the nearby suburbs because SBC isnt rolling it out unless they get a big fat deregulation handout from the feds. Hopefully with a way to crush competitors paying

    • 911 (Score:2)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 )
      When it comes to the phone system, regulation is important for one reason only - 911.

      Vonage doesn't ever support 911 in all areas right now. Even if they did, the calls are packets routed over the internet - what if the connection quality drops while you are speaking to emergency personnel? What about the 911 caller locator service? They'll have to make that work over VOIP too if it is going to gain this much popularity. This will likely require national standards and regulation.

      Just wait until the first
    • that damned "Do Not Call List" as it prevents business from making legitimate calls to complete strangers during meal times. Also, the government should stay completely out of regulating mass e-mailing (called 'SPAM' by people who don't appreciate the tremendous b*u*s*i*n_e_s_s_ opp*ort*unities in that field). Damn Feds restricting our rights.

      We absolutely have to keep the FCC from interfering with legitimate mass marketing business on our VoIP phones!

  • Inevitable - but where to start .. ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OneNonly ( 55197 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:08PM (#10570909)
    Regulation of VoiP is inevitable - especially as it starts to become more main stream (and especially when the major carriers begin to switch over to it).

    I just wish the regulation would start by getting all carriers to allow user defined ENUM [enum.org] records - and allow the Voip revolution to start in a big way.

    If I can specify a SIP address in Enum for my own home phone number, then anyone using SIP phones that looked up ENUM could be routed to this number, and bypass the carrier all together.. But how many carriers can we actually see implementing this without some form of government intervention??
    • I agree that regulation is inevitable, but it should not be by the FCC. The FCC has too much power as it is.
      Keep IP FCC Free!
      • I'm from Australia and so it makes little diffence where the regulation is being implemented in this particular example..

        I just wish there was some way for the IETF to impose good practices on VoIP carriers and telcos in an *international* manner - rather than state by state or nation by nation.

        Yeah, that's going to happen :'(
        • In theory, the Great, all-powerful, League of United Nations (The UN) could impose regulation that member nations must have a law or similar regulation that says and/or includes a certain thing, but what makes you think that the 'major' nations in the UN would comply?
          • Actually, much better approach, closer to how industries do it right:

            Put the ISO in charge of a spec, based on recommendations from the UN and US. They design standards and a system for local extensions to the standard. Then, once its ISO, UN puts forth a recommendation that individual nations ratify the ISO standard into law.

            ISO is one of those few international organisations that I feel isn't screwed up.

  • To FCC or not to FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:10PM (#10570922)

    What a conundrum. On this score, I'd have to agree that if anyone is to regulate the VoIP market, it should be at the federal level. I actually agree with his statement that otherwise you'd get a patchwork of regs, which would be bad.

    On the other hand, this is the same FCC that hasn't moved an inch on Sinclair's intended abuse of the airwaves, is working incredibly hard to remove that "obscene" breast (that'd be the same breast most babies see multiple times a day!) from TV, and does other sundry things.

    • Re:To FCC or not to FCC (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The FCC needs radical change.

      As of late, it has limited free speech and has encouraged the complete commercialization of radio and TV. No damn good!

      Obviously broadcast frequencies need to be regulated but only to ensure multiple parties do not broadcast in the same area at the same frequency. Content should be off limit.

      Ownership is another matter. Consolidation has caused irreperable harm to the quality of radio. I'm not suggesting we socialize it (the ultimate consolidation), but it needs to be regulat

    • Re:To FCC or not to FCC (Score:5, Interesting)

      by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @08:08PM (#10571305)
      Sinclair nothing, this is the same FCC that engineered such a giveway of public airspace to private corporations it resulted in the worst public backlash in the Commission's history, forcing a repeal. Powell is unquestionably a whore of private media interests and acting in complete, almost criminal neglect of the FCC's mandate. If Powell calls for regulation of VOIP the smart money ignores the 'moral' stance and looks for who will benefit. My guess is he's doing this for his telco buddies.

  • Regulate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:10PM (#10570928) Journal
    Why should anyone regulate VOIP? If I'm streaming bits from my computer to my friends computer across the country, what business of the government is it if it's voice or anything else. How are they even going to know?

    • Re:Regulate? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because if things aren't burried under heaps of regulation, the terrorists will blow us all up.

    • Re:Regulate? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nsayer ( 86181 ) <nsayer@MENCKENkfu.com minus author> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:27PM (#10571060) Homepage
      Mod Parent Up!

      Where is it written that anytime something new arrives the government has to come along and shit all over it?

      How do they propose to even define VoIP? Does iChatAV count? Does it have to be real time? If so, how do you define that? What is the level of latency before it becomes unregulated? If it doesn't have to be realtime do you then tax attaching .aiff files to e-mail? Is it all about phone numbers? How long after they start regulating it that way before people simply abandon that archaic addressing scheme?

      No, no, no, no, no. Nobody apart from the endpoints should have any reason to look at anything besides the IP header. We've already departed too far from that state of affairs.

      • Where is it written that anytime something new arrives the government has to come along and shit all over it?

        Reagan wrote that one:

        If it moves, tax it.
        If it keeps moving, regulate it.
        If it stops moving, subsidize it.

        --

      • The definition of VOIP that should be adopted is any service that lets you call up people on the regular PSTN phone network and lets them call up you.

        So, something like MSN/AIM/etc voice chat doesnt count because its totally IP based and cant connect to the PSTN.

        • Re:Regulate? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mrchaotica ( 681592 )
          Doesn't some POTS already go over the Internet? Or at least, packet switched rather than circuit switched?

          The point I'm trying to get at is, isn't it likely that at some point in the future there won't be a PSTN and everything will be IP based? At that point, what do we do about VoIP regulation?

    • Re:Regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oyler@noSpAm.comcast.net> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:28PM (#10571067) Journal
      911 emergency service access, primarily. Most other justifications are kinda flaky, though.
      • If we're talking about emergency service access, I think that the way e911 was mandated for new cellular telephones might be the way to go. Your service must connect you with an emergency operator, and you pay a monthly tax to support that service which is small compared to the overall bill.

        Now, clearly that requires some regulation, but perhaps just as a requirement of a feature/service rather than as overarching regulation of VOIP. I doubt if the government will be able to stop with just that one regul
    • Why should anyone regulate VOIP? If I'm streaming bits from my computer to my friends computer across the country, what business of the government is it if it's voice or anything else.

      But one could turn that same argument around and ask: if regular telephone service is regulated, why should VOIP be exempt? Phones are phones so why should it matter if the voices travel over analog lines, or digital lines using the TCP/IP protocol? Why should one be regulated and the other not?

      I'm not really in favor o

      • Using them both ways is fine by me. The answer is not that VoIP should be regulated because POTS lines are, it's that POTS lines should not be regulated either.

        When phone service was a monopoly, that was one thing. But between VoIP, cell service and alternate dial tone providers (my parents actually get their dial tone from their cable company), the regulation is becoming vestigial.

    • How? (Score:2)

      by Teancum ( 67324 )
      I would have to add that not only should the government get totally away from VOIP, but the real question is how can it be done at all?

      While I could see some "regulation" of dealing with the interface between VoIP servers and conventional land-line carriers, I totally fail to see how it would be even possible to stop me from making my own software, sending a copy to a friend or even a group fo friends, and setting up what is essentially a PBX system. Any regulation of speech over IP is simply going to be
    • Why should anyone regulate VoIP?

      Because you need some regulation in order to keep others' hands off of VoIP so that it does not get strangled.

      Primarily that means the California PUC, which wants to license and charge [slashdot.org] VoIP providers as telephone operators.

      It is also important that Democrat FCC Commissioner Michael Copps not become Chairman, because he is the biggest proponent for wire-tapping VoIP [com.com], censoring [reason.com] the media, and over-regulating broadband [techliberation.com].
    • Why should anyone regulate VOIP?

      It's an interesting question. I suppose there's the "if it quacks like a duck" argument--if a VOIP provider is selling devices that act like telephone handsets, then they should have to live up to the same--or similar--standards as POTS. Perhaps there ought to be regulation of quality of service (how many nines of reliability does your cable internet service usually demonstrate? Two in a bad year; three in a good one? How about your POTS? Five. For decades.) Perhaps t

  • Why regulate? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There is nothing to regulate, why get the Feds mixed up in this crap so they can muck it up like everything else. People know you don't have 911 with VoIP, and there fine with it, fine with not paying for it especially.. those who want it can do e911 type services from Vonage, etc.. The only potential good that could come out of regulation would be in local number portability, but I can live without it if it means the government won't mess with what is really just an Internet service to public telephone ne

  • Interesting and contradicting. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Leykis101 ( 662433 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:16PM (#10570975) Journal
    Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell. As We all know that Colin Powell is the current Secretary of State under George W. Bush Administration. A Republican Administration.

    Michael Powell is a registered Republican.

    Interestingly, the GOP always preaching to have a smaller government and regulate the industry less.

    Now, it seems that FCC, with a Republican Chairman is pushing an un-Republican agenda.

    There is a really interesting article on msn.com regarding Michael Powell, The son of Colin Powell, the FCC Chairman.
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2078879/ [msn.com]

    Makes you wonder.

    Howard Stern is right!

    -------

    • Re:Interesting and contradicting. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Matrix14 ( 135171 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:31PM (#10571089)
      Which ones are the Republicans again?

      (TWAJS)
    • FYI, Michael Powell was appointed by Clinton. Bush re-affirmed his position. He has been popular with both parties.

      the GOP always preaching to have a smaller government and regulate the industry less... Now, it seems that FCC, with a Republican Chairman is pushing an un-Republican agenda.

      Think there are some missing words there, but I don't think your point is valid here. A single set of federal regulation would probably mean less overall bureaucracy than state-level regulation. Imagine if cell phone p

  • This is so Howard Stern can't have phone sex (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Right?

  • eventually (Score:5, Insightful)

    by divot2001 ( 758678 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:24PM (#10571034)
    Of course the VoIP infrastructure should be regulated by the federal government; when it has a larger portion of the market and the technology has matured. In the meantime, regulation by the states would only explore alternatives for when it eventually becomes necessary to enact federal statutes. And the communications industry will continue to impede the development of VoIP, since it is cheaper to only lobby one group of officials.
    • Of course the VoIP infrastructure should be regulated

      As pointed out elsewhere, regulation is redundant. We already have laws against force, theft and fraud. What special agenda did you have that requires something beyond the basic protection against force that government is responsible for?

  • Wasn't it their job to regulate the airwaves? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lpontiac ( 173839 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:25PM (#10571042)
    And doesn't this go beyond their mandate?

    • I believe the agency is called the Federal Communications Commission, not Federal Airwaves Commission. So an argument can be made for them to get their paws in pretty much any kind of interstate communication.
    • Well since it's across fiber optic cables, and light is part of the spectrum...

      Never doubt the ability of ANY government agency to interpret things to stretch their power beyond mandate, since they know it will take years for a case to hit the courts, and years more for it to finish its appeals if it even wins, and while that's happening they can come up with another interpretation that will require another court case, of course thats even assuming the SCOTUS doesn't just cite "compelling public interest"

    • Their job was to create and protect monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)

      by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @08:51PM (#10571546) Journal
      The FCC's original job was partly to eliminate unregulated competition for the radio spectrum, ostensibly in the name of "protecting" the public's commons from interference, but in reality protecting the power of the early corporate interests who grabbed lots of spectrum, and regulating the content of speech you were allowed to broadcast. There were better alternatives - letting the market evolve formal or informal property rights, which happened in many places before government takeovers, and happened in Italy during much of the 80s and 90s when radio stations basically ignored the regulators but got along fine with each other. There were also worse alternatives - too many governments totally nationalized their airwaves, taking control away from the public and giving it to government propaganda stations. (Some of those produced some high quality material, like the BBC, but that was largely the exception.)

      Additionally, they became the Federal regulators of the interstate aspects of the telephone monopolies, though those had already become largely state-regulated because the "regulated monopoly" tradeoff of exclusive power to offer a service in return for politically correct implementation and pricing is basically a geographical monopoly at the local scale.

      Much of the New Deal really worked that way - trading off favors for regulation while telling the public that they were beating up the evil nasty monopolies.

  • The motivation for this is clear (Score:5, Interesting)

    by johnthorensen ( 539527 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:35PM (#10571120)
    From the telcos' perspective, there is a lot of motivation to centralize the authority over VoIP. Why? Because they know the freight train is coming and they would like to send all their lobbyists to one place (Washington) instead of having to spread their efforts out to every state capitol.

    If you want to protect VoIP, the best thing we can do is have the individual states regulate it. Security through heterogenity works against attacks on technology as well as for computer networks :)

    -JT
    • Not to be redundant, but what the hell is there to regulate? If Verizon or AT&T or MCI can route long distance over the Internet, what's the big deal if I just route there earlier?

      And what *is* VOIP? Is it calls from a PC or VOIP box to a POTS phone, or is it calls from PC-to-PC?

      If a /.-er doesn't know where to start regulating VOIP how the hell is a 50-70 year old congressperson who can barely operate a PC going to regulate it?

      Oh, wait, they don't. The lobbyists regulate their own industries by prox

  • Re: FCC Insists Feds Should Regulate VoIP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by c1ay ( 703047 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:35PM (#10571125) Homepage
    I really don't see why it should be regulated at all. Once the voice is digitized it becomes data packets like all of the other data packets traveling the web. What's the point in government regulating voice data packets? Sounds to me like the government providing insurance to the phone companies to protect their rackets like long distance. Kind of like the health insurance the mob used to sell, pay up and you'll stay healthy.

  • Public Interest? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The FCC rarely seems to be acting in the public interest these days. Here is an interesting article about how they're reducing access to the internet for the benefit of corporations [projectcensored.org].
  • AFAIK VOIP is intended to replace existing telephone but I dont know how they are going to do that. I see 3 big challenges.
    1. those that are less than tech savvy are going to be wary of it,
    2. No cordless ability. And if they were they would probably have to connect through 802.11 requiring a router then there's privacy worries and extra cost etc.
    3. Cell phones offer much more mobility and easier access than VOIP I already ditched my landline in favor of a cell phonedont make any out of state calls and

    • Re:12x that #? why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zentec ( 204030 ) * <zentec@gmai l . com> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:22PM (#10571743)
      1. Yes, those who are less than technically savvy are going to be very wary of it. So they'll spend $15 per month for a Voicepulse account and keep the landline. For a couple months, until they realize that $15 buys the essentially the same thing they're paying some ILEC $50 when they could be paying a VoIP provider a lot less.

      Money talks.

      2. How so? VoIP requires an analog telephone adapter that plugs into your existing corded and cordless phones. They all work great. And here's something that'll make your hair stand on end and a lot of people on Slashdot just can't seem to grasp about VoIP; you'll need a VoIP provider for a very long time because a large percentage of the world will still be on the circuit switched POTS network.

      So while the concept of point-to-point VoIP calls over the Internet is sexy, it's likely your calls to grandma will still need a POTS line somewhere. So when the rest of the world catches up to you, enjoy your ATA and your plain old telephones.

      3. You obviously do not have a family with teenagers. My monthly home telephone minutes are in excess of 800 minutes. $15 on Voicepulse gets me half of my state as a local phone call and 200 minutes of long distance. I don't think any cell provider could touch that.

  • First "Tel Co's should worry" then "Regulate VoIP" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ivi ( 126837 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:14PM (#10571672)

    In a land where the gov't used to own 100% of the only TelCo on the continent (Australia),
    we know how gov't control of telecommunications goes.

    But - more recently - we noticed (on wwwl.Skype.com) a reference to the FCC's head,
    just after he tested Skype, suggesting that TelCo's should be worried...

    Now, we read that FCC insists that it regulate VoIP...

    I guess that means the worries of TelCo's will be less (in USA, at least)

    Oh, in Oz, Telstra seems to be retaining 90+ % of our telecomms market...

    Telstra: "What? Me Worry?"

    (Never!)

  • Ignites?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by surprise_audit ( 575743 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @01:46AM (#10573180)
    Did nobody else find this amusing??

    Powell is a strong proponent of VoIP (and a Skype user), and considers it the technology that ignites (not competes with) telecom industry.

    My immediate thought was that he meant ignite as in burn to the ground...

  • typical (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wansu ( 846 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @02:52AM (#10573418)


    This is consistent with all the other stuff Powell has done. He's a corporate welfare handout man. He just can't wait to get his hands on VoIP. Oh, the power brokering leverage that would give him. This little caesar is the reason we don't have fiber to the curb today. No sooner did he liquidate the RF spectrum then he's ready to cannabalize the internet too. He's gotta go.
  • In order to have effective VoIP you have to have broadband internet service. Currently where I live there are only two real options. DSL through the phone company or broadband cable through Time Warner.

    So let's see...

    DSL through phone company - phone service already regulated by FCC (including additional fees...) CHECK

    Broadband through TWC - Cable already regulated by FCC (including additional fees...) CHECK

    So how is my VoIP not regulated?

    If they levy MORE fees on my VoIP provider then I'd want to know

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close