Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet Government The Courts United States News

Federal Appeals Court Sides With VoIP Providers 143

Posted by timothy from the semantics-sometimes-important dept.
gollum123 writes "AP reports that the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling by a lower court that A Minnesota agency may not regulate calls through VoIP as it does calls through traditional phone lines. 'The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had argued that VoIP companies were providing phone-like service and therefore should be regulated as phone companies are. But those businesses said they provide an information service rather than a telecommunications service. This follows the FCC saying that VOIP cannot be regulated using the same rules as traditional phone.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Appeals Court Sides With VoIP Providers More

Federal Appeals Court Sides With VoIP Providers

Comments Filter:

  • load of bull? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:23PM (#11213644) Journal
    This is really just bullshit isnt it? VoIP _is_ like a phone, the only reason that it shouldnt be classed as a phone system is to get around stupid ancient phone laws that should be updated instead of worked around, its like saying that by-passing CD 'copy protection' isnt a violation of the DMCA because its for back-up purposes, - it quite clearly is a violation, the real point is that the DMCA is crap.

    • Re:load of bull? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln ( 21727 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:25PM (#11213666)
      That's not a politically viable viewpoint, no matter how correct it is. There is no political pressure to reform the outdated phone system regulations, and classifying VoIP as "phone service" could open the door to classifying IP traffic in general as "phone service," thus opening up the political dynamite that is regulating the Internet.

      Clearly, the safest political move is to simply classify VoIP as not phone-related, thereby sidestepping the dicey issues that are really at play here.
    • I agree...There are way too many laws that are so outdated and are still legitimate it's kinda scary. Most law makers don't know anything about technology so it takes time. I mean VOIP is phone service using new technology that does the same thing as traditional 100+ yearold technology but in a completly difrent way. This should be toghroly reviewed by law makers and updated as necesary.

    • Re:load of bull? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:38PM (#11213777)
      Um, maybe they should not be classified as a phone system is because they are not a phone system. If I live in LA, but get a NY area code from Vonage, which states regulations apply, (or do both). What happens when I take my little vonage box to New Mexico to visit the family for a week, or on a long business trip? What if they use Vonage over a Dialup connection, do they get to pay double fees? The main reason for the laws that are there is becuase they telecoms agreed to them in order to get a government "licensed" monopoly. The goverment taxes the phone lines, (ie, the wires) not the calls. If they want, they should tax the internet connections, the cable modems, DSL lines, wireless hotsposts, whatever, but not the data.

    • Re:load of bull? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      In a way, it is kind of a tax dodge. I think it is funny, especially when a lot of people buy DSL service (over a phone line), get phone service (VoIP) and basically get the same service with a phone number, 911, voice mail, caller ID, but is not taxable or regulated as a phone service.
      • it's not the same service, it looks like the same service just like watching downloaded TV shows off a cable modem looks similar to just watching TV over the cable. The telephone line is still being paid for and taxed wherever it exit's the vonage system and becomes a phone number, the only difference is Vonage is able to get bulk rates rather than residential rates, basically vonage acts as a for-profit collective bargaining agent, the telco's don't like that because they want to be able to squeeze money f
    • By claiming Ebay isn't an auctionsite, but an online marketplace, they circumvent the thousands of laws across the world regarding how auctions take place.

      Same goes for paypal, they get to dodge all the laws that regulate banks because they don't claim to be a bank, but an online transaction site or something.

      I'm just thankful the government hasn't been able to tax the internet yet.
    • Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an efficient system for removing outdated laws.

      I'd like to see laws expire after a predetermined amount of time, with a national review board populated by volunteers who determine if the law is still applicable given the current climate.

      Such volunteers would be required to have working knowledge of the subjects up for review.

      Of course this is a pure pipe dream, but it's something I would like to see happen. Unfortunately, bureacracy poisons everything it touches and
      • Certainly is a pipe dream, but for the future perhaps technology laws could be written, not with a sunset clause but with insight into how technology could change.. its called future-proofing and most engineers understand it well, unfortunately politicians don't have the superior mind of the engineer and so should bow in before anyone with a masters.
      • "I'd like to see laws expire after a predetermined amount of time"

        That's why Congress invented a little thing called an amendment. The amendment is used to not only add new lines but to remove obsolete lines of law. Let me give you a small example:

        A favorite topic here on /. has been amended no less than 50 times since 1976... Copyright law. They added new parts (DMCA, term extensions) and deleted other parts (registration requirements). Another instance that goes one step further is to amend the constitu
        • Yes, but Congress is owned by corporations, not the general public. This is not meant as a troll, but as an observation of the power of corporate lobbies versus consumer lobby.

          It doesn't matter how much ten people or a hundred bitch and moan about the injustice of new law, if a corporation is backing it with the promise of 200,000 dollars to a politicians election fund, who are they going to listen to.

          Independent volunteers who can't profit or even be elected from their positions on a law review board mig
          • "It doesn't matter how much ten people or a hundred bitch and moan about the injustice of new law, if a corporation is backing it with the promise of 200,000 dollars to a politicians election fund, who are they going to listen to.

            Independent volunteers who can't profit or even be elected from their positions on a law review board might provide a system that has a less corporate bent."

            Then why elect government officials if you are going to short circuit them with "Independant volenteers"? That is putting w
    • The fact of the matter is, it's not very sexy to remove old laws. A politician gets a lot more attention for laws he/she helps to enact rather than those he/she removes. Thus, why would any of them bother? That being said, you're quite right that there are plenty of outdated laws on the books, but there just isn't much public interest in this issue.
      • I think it would be pretty sexy to be the politican who removed such gems as "Those commiting sodomy shall be taken to the town square and burnt at the stake" etc?

  • Doesn't stop them... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oyler@noSpAm.comcast.net> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:25PM (#11213667) Journal
    From selling it as a telephone substitute. I'd be more than happy to let them out of this, if they were willing to point it out to each customer prioring to signing them up, that courts have ruled that it's not phone service, and that they have no recourse through the utility commission should it have problems.

    • Re:Doesn't stop them... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ReTay ( 164994 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:35PM (#11213747)
      "and that they have no recourse through the utility commission should it have problems."

      But that would be wrong.

      I work for a large cable company and we are adding VOIP to our line up as fast as we can provide the guaranteed up times mandated by the government. Like 99.99 uptime and independent power supply and such. And yes if your ticked at the cable company you can call the P.U.C

      The funny thing is that so many people hate the phone companies so bad they will snap up the service as fast as it is available. The growth has to be slow to keep the network growing in front of the wave of people who hate phone companies bad enough to do nearly anything to get away from them.
      They did it to themselves. Bad customer service is legendary with phone companies.
      • You're correct about the telcos, but don't become complacent yourselves. Like having your DNS servers on the same subnet.
      • I work for a large cable company and we are adding VOIP to our line up as fast as we can provide the guaranteed up times mandated by the government. Like 99.99 uptime and independent power supply and such. And yes if your ticked at the cable company you can call the P.U.C

        Which is fine. But suppose I only get connectivity from your cable company, and get VoIP from, say, Vonage. (Just an example, I'm not saying anything's wrong with them) And then suppose they charge me for some service I never signed up

        • Or simply disappear off the face of the earth. I have no recourse at all.

          yes you do... ever heard of a "chargeback" ? Every single one of these voip companies has you pay via credit card.
        • "Which is fine. But suppose I only get connectivity from your cable company, and get VoIP from, say, Vonage. (Just an example, I'm not saying anything's wrong with them) And then suppose they charge me for some service I never signed up for."

          You pays your money you takes your chances.
          Don't use a fly-by-night company and your set.

          "And certainly the cable company would be no more liable than if I bought some other online service (like, say, video conferencing) and it went down."

          Incorrect on two counts.
          Cabl
      • hmmmm... and here I was thinking it was BAD CABLE SERVICE that was legendary.
        • "hmmmm... and here I was thinking it was BAD CABLE SERVICE that was legendary."

          Ha even the worst cable company out there would have to work night and day for decades to get close to phone companies.
          • first, I'd like to mention that I am in no way a proponent of phone companies or work for one.

            now, you said bad service is 'legendary'. I can't seem to remember any commonplace stereotypes about phone companies. I do point out that it is a common assumption in our society that the cable guy is never there when he said he'd be, having had the experience a few times myself. This commonplace stereotype is even the plot of an entire Sienfield episode

            again, as far as phone companies go, I don't have anythin
            • "first, I'd like to mention that I am in no way a proponent of phone companies or work for one."

              Fine granted, I do work for a cable company for the moment. However I can put my finger in the wind and see the direction it is blowing. And the first company that gets fiber to the door will win. End of story.

              "now, you said bad service is 'legendary'. I can't seem to remember any commonplace stereotypes about phone companies"

              Well I only know the rules that go in the company I work for. Two hour appointmen
      • You make it sound like SBC, Verizon, etc., are all washed up. It's just a matter of time before voice service is strictly VOIP, with the usual suspects who can afford it pricing those who can't outta the market, then we're still stuck w/ their crap customer service. And if their price fixing doesn't work, they'll just buy any competition up. Nothing changes.
      • Besides the desire to be connected, this is why we went entirely cellular - SBC is absolutely terrible. If we hadn't had a cell we'd have been without a phone for three days while our line was out of service because of an equipment failure. Communications which rely on land lines are just inherently unreliable - especially when managed first by pacific "splice it again, sam" bell and then by southwestern "you want it when?" bell. The cellphone is superior to VoIP in many ways but mostly due to the inherent
        • But now imagine being able to get all your informational services from the same company.
          (Most people have cold shivers running up and down their spine at this point.) To be fair I have never dealt with Verizon. But they seem to be thinking that they can put the fiber in and get triple use out of the lines. Sell people Land line service high speed Internet access and Digital TV access through the same connection. And then bundle it together with their cell phone service cheaper then you can get it
          anywhere
          • I think it will work too, and it's where I've been expecting things to go all along. The only thing missing from the same puzzle over at the telcos these days is the television, and from what I've read they are looking to go into that area - which only makes sense since the cable companies are moving into their business. On the other hand, I think wireless is the answer to the age-old "last mile" question, not fiber. Sure, run fiber to the access point, but there is no point to even having a wire to the hou

    • Re:Doesn't stop them... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @06:21PM (#11214107)
      if they were willing to point it out to each customer prioring to signing them up, that courts have ruled that it's not phone service, and that they have no recourse through the utility commission should it have

      Exactly. This is not entirely good. It's good in that it gives the VoIP providers a bit more flexibility in what they can do, and where they can offer service, and what service they can offer. By the same token, there's nothing to stop a fly-by-nite VoIP provider from scewing everyone over.

      Some states have regulations that currently prevent phone companies from turning service off completely in the case of non-payment (ie: you can still call 911). And they allow you to dispute a portion of the bill and pay the undisputed portion and still have no service cutoff until the dispute is resolved. Those regulations are among those that states would not be allowed to enforce under this ruling.

      However, all the courts said is that you don't get to regulate VoIP in the same method as phone service. There's nothing to stop the states from setting up new regulations for "information providers", etc.

    • The customer has even better recourse: switch VOIP providers. It's a lot easier than switching traditional phone or cable providers. Bad VOIP companies will lose customers overnight, since it will be trivially easy to find another one. This should be all the regulation VOIP providers need, apart from the usual consumer fraud laws which already apply.
      • I actually know how VOIP works, I work for a company that offers it. In theory, it might be quick to switch to another, but since there needs to be an interface between the packets and POTS, and since this is rather complex... things can often be screwed up for days or weeks. Try having no dial tone for 10 days, if you think it's easy (and this is for people wanting our service, not necessarily switching to a competitor).

        And as far as that goes, I don't even know that anyone uses the same hardware as us, o

  • Wiretap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darth_MALL ( 657218 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:27PM (#11213676)
    (disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise)
    How does this desicion affect the rights of law enforcement to 'tap' VOIP communications? Has it now placed them outside the scope of a traditional wiretap? Does a traditional wiretap now encompass data? If not, Having the FCC and two courts backing this would make it pretty difficult for the feds to work around I think.

    • Re:Wiretap (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      They can always certainly do a wiretap and tap the line the VoIP travels over. They can do that with any form of internet connection, and it can encompass data as well. The question is if they can demand changes to the software to make it meaningful (i.e. be able to decrypt the line).

      My indication so far is that this hasn't been required. However, the way to twist their arm has normally been to demand that they follow phone rules in order to bridge VoIP to phone. Basicly, that they would have to provide th
    • Using VoIP you can encrypt your call on the fly, route that shit through some proxy servers and there "ain't" no tappin' baby. -Nazz
  • When I call my family using VoIP, they can't tell the difference.Who would have thought making calls across the atlantic would be much cheaper than calling someone across town on a payphone?

    I don't care what they decide to call it. I'm just glad it's dirt cheap.

  • Good news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:28PM (#11213690) Homepage Journal
    It's always nice to see law follow reality. The problem with regulating VoIP is the question of where you stop. It's only a short conceptual jump from regulating VoIP telephony to regulating Roger Wilco. Imagine if you had to allow a tap on any voice communications. The only way to do that is either mandate a standard back door, or to outlaw all encryption. The future of telephony is internet-connected phones and dialing by DDNS with very, very short leases. Cellphone providers will become internet and DDNS providers and all communications will be only as sniffable as the communication between the two phones allows.

    Regulating VoIP can only make criminals out of those who desire privacy.

  • This could be a bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jacobcaz ( 91509 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:29PM (#11213695) Homepage
    I've run several ISPs over the years and one thing that always was the ISP owners "big stick" over the telcos (both ILEC and CLEC) was the PUC (public utilities council), usually coupled with a local utilities council or other regulatory group (like the IURC in Indiana).

    Every time we were jerked around by our ILEC or CLEC providers, we could give the PUC and IURC a call and the problems would usually be solved post haste. A call to our account rep suggesting we would report an incindnet to the PUC would bring swift service indeed.

    See, we alone couldn't do anything to SBC/Ameritech or Time Warner Telecommunications (or our other CLECs), but the PUC and IURC could "get their regulatin' on" and slap them around with big fines for not providing the promised service, breaking rate tarriffs, etc.

    Sure, you can much more easily choose a different VoIP provider than you can a POTS provider, but how long before market consolidation leaves only one or two real VoIP choices? What happens when they start to pull similar BS that the ILECs and CLECs do but aren't regulated by the FCC?

    I'm not generally in favor of governmental regulation, but sometimes a little oversight isn't a bad thing. If they want to act like utilities, let them be treated like utilities since we know the markets will converge and consolidate anyway towards only 1 or 2 big national players.

    • Re:This could be a bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mattintosh ( 758112 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:39PM (#11213787)
      The thing is, they're not utilities. They're providers. Utilities maintain wires. The big guys have been protecting their status as both utility and provider for a long time, but VoIP will end that once and for all. SBC will become a line utility, and the ISP will become a VoIP provider. Whether SBC will sell the general public a VoIP service is irrelevant. Someone will, and there will be competition.
    • [...] ISP [...] ILEC and CLEC [...] PUC [...] IURC [...] POTS [...] VOiP [...] FCC [...]
      Would you mind following up your post with a glossary? ;-)
    • Sure, you can much more easily choose a different VoIP provider than you can a POTS provider, but how long before market consolidation leaves only one or two real VoIP choices?

      My guess is never. The VoIP market doesn't show any sign of being a natural monopoly the way the telephone market is. Economies of scale won't win you very much past a certain point, so there's no reason it would ever get to the point you describe.
    • Welcome to the club.. We've had to take the ClueBat to our ILEC and CLEC's more than a few times over the time in which we had leased our HiCap analogs and PRI circuits from Verizoned and SBClueless. Each time a circuit would go down, we'd call them, and either they would say it would take 2-3 days, or if it were on a weekend as when it break often, SBChumps woulden't even answer the phone!

      The only T1 provider in which we came to love those last couple of years was Sprintlink. They were helpful, nicer'n an
  • Does anyone know what sort of regulations were in question?

    Right now, it seems that only the FCC has the authority to regulate. I just hope that when there is an emergency I will be able to get connected to a dispacher quickly.
    • That is one downside to this technology. They go to great lengths to ensure the customer is aware that this is NOT your regular 911 service.

      FWIW, I did the math on the odds that I will call 911. Although I have yet to use 911 during the better part of the last three decades, I know I that I use VoIP at my own risk. They say they may not be able to provide 911 service in the event of a power outage.

      At any rate, I have discontinued my traditional phone service.

  • the 911 issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @05:58PM (#11213921)
    I've heard many people for an against VoIP regulation, most people make valid points with it. My personal opinion is leave it unregulated and unencumbered by law.

    My only issue is that of 911 calls. Like one poster mentioned about location (sorry, Quantumriff [slashdot.org] but it's a good one) , if I lived in LA but had a New York area code then visited relatives in New Mexico, how would the 911 issue be fixed?

    They don't have to provide this service at all (to the best of my knowledge) but if they had to/or are willing here's what I suggest.

    Make it based on IP/range etc. When you plug in and log-on, have a dialog setup for voluntary or manditory address insertion before you can use the phone. Shouldn't take too long right? That way your info can be transmitted via the VoIP service to the 911 center and have the correct information.

    Once you plugged in again to the system, you can opt to have that information perminantly deleted or kept in your account for future if it's a frequented place of yours.

    Does that sound viable? Opinions please!

    -zoloto
    • and by manditory, I mean if the system can detect if you are definitely out of state or really out of your area. Maybe even have the information not be manditory (since hotels and relatives/friends have phones you can use).

      Just to clarify.
    • So I'm in LA and I have an internet connection with a tunnel to an ISP in Nebraska. As far as my IP address, I'm in Nebraska. How are you going to verify that?

      Maditory address insertion is absurd at best. Some insane scheme of madatory GPS would be more realistic but probably just as easy to spoof/bypass.

      How do cell phones do 911? I guess they can at least tell what tower the device is connected with.
      • I have no idea how cellphones do 911 but since as you say they can see the tower that's probably pretty much how it's done. You could accomplish the same thing with VoIP phones just by doing a traceroute...
        • That's exactly my point... Traceroute tells you nothing because IP addresses can be routed. They aren't physically attached to anything. You could tunnel over a tunnel over a tunnel and the IP address you're using for VoIP could be anywhere.
          • With IPv6 this might be an issue because people regularly tunnel it but since we don't advertise /32 routes with BGP the rerouting of addresses is virtually a non-issue. The IP address of phones will change as they move (just as the IP of a laptop wandering from open AP to open AP changes today) so the information will be useful.
        • The IP phone on my desk has IP address 10.2.1.57. Traceroute to it and come say "Hi."

          See you soon!
          • The last hop with an actual location will be fine. You aren't going to be advertising that address when you make calls outside your local network because otherwise it wouldn't route. If you call me, I can trace the route and, as you put it, come say hi. If it's a dynamically assigned address, of course, some cooperation from your ISP would be necessary.
    • There's no need.

      Enhanced 911 (E911) services are available from most (if not all) serious VoIP players.

      E911, which emerged as a mandate for cell providers, includes location information in the signalling stream.

    • This is how Vonage Handles 911 Dialing [vonage.com]. Basically, you have to activate it by telling them your phisical address. Once you do, 911 calls are directed to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) in your area -- when I tested it, they answered "911 Emergency Services" and knew exactly where I was.

      This seems like a reasonable way to do things for people like myself who don't relocate with my VoIP box. However, the question of people who do relocate frequently is a good thing to consider. I believe (although I

      • Hey, thanks for that link. I missed it (sometimes I miss a barn in front of me) for some reason. The E911 service makes sense for another responder to my question.

        Thought manditory/almost manditory information insertion isn't absurd, just annoyance at best if you have no other way to dial 911.

  • Regulating/taxing VoIP is a bad bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ValuJet ( 587148 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @06:09PM (#11213999)
    VoIP is just data packets being sent back and forth on the internet. There is no real difference between a VoIP packet and one of your favorite website. Allowing the government to apply regulations to a specific kind of traffic is the start of a VERY VERY nasty slope. The government should not be able to apply taxes to VoIP because it is just data being sent over the internet.
    • Are you saying that you're satisfied with your ISP being able to can your account at a whim, charge whatever they feel like, and deliver service which is as poor as a bum on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial?

      In order to subscribe to Roadrunner, I had to sign a lengthy contract. This contract states, basically, that I can do anything I want with their network, as long as I don't do very much of it, it doesn't piss anyone off or break any hairbrained laws, and that they'll be happy to disconnect service for
      • How free IS the market? IIRC roadrunner is a cable isp, how many cable ISP's do you get to choose from where your at. I don't even have one, but in most areas it's only one, or rarely two.
        That's not exactly what's usually meant by free market, it's more like a monopoly (which can arise in a free market, but that's not usually the case with cable).
        I'll agree that some regulation to prevent fraud and monopoly is good, but otherwise I'm very sceptical of regulation.
        Of course if IIRIncorrectly and ro
        • Who cares how many ISPs operate on a given cable system?

          The free market exists, because around here, Time Warner'a Roadrunner service (and the shirt-tailing "competitive" providers like Earthlink) gets to compete with, at least, the following:

          - DSL from any of almost all of the national vendors
          - Wireless service from several local/regional WISPs
          - Satellite
          - The fuckton of local dialup providers
          - The bigger fuckton of national dialup providers
          - Verizon 1x cellular service
          - ISDN
          - A large and random smatteri
          • And excessive regulation would make it an expensive toy subject to fickle beauracrats. Post haste and 'government agency' don't go together very often.
            Somtimes regulation to prevent monopoly or abuse is necessary. But don't expect it to mandate quality or reliability anywhere near what market forces can eventually do. The problem right now is more people want broadband than can get it in many areas meaning no matter how bad thier terms are they KNOW they can sell more than they can provide. When an ar

  • Time to change (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pnewhook ( 788591 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @06:19PM (#11214086)

    It's time we change the way we think about these utilities and start removing some of these outdated regulations.

    Currently (here in Canada at least) I can get telephone, cellphone and high speed internet from my cable television supplier, or I can get cellphone, television and high speed internet from my telephone company, or I can even get most of the above through a number of independent smaller companies, usually through a wireless antenna or satellite dish.

    With all of these options on equivalent services, these regulations and their outdated definitions no longer make sense.

  • The telephone tax was originally started as a tax to be used to pay for the Spanish American War. Telephones were selected then because they were a luxury item. Why can't we find a luxury item today to tax instead of my VOIP service ?

    There are a few websites out there like this one http://riseup.net/nacc/telephone.htm [riseup.net] that tell you how to avoid paying landline telephone tax. If they do decide to tax VOIP, just do the same thing. If someone comes back and says my VOIP tax money is needed to fight our
  • Whichout regulation, what kind of defense does The Quality Paperback Club in Mechanicsburg, PA have when enough people report them for harrasement?

    They seem to be calling my house 3-4 times a day every single day, sometimes leaving a messege, other times not. They start their prerecorded messege before my machine is even done with it's announcement. It's a machine calling, and leaving a messege.

    You may be asking why a paperback book club would be making automated calls to me, well, they're not! It's a
    • Here is the real beauty of VOIP.

      Don't want calls from a bill collector faking it as TQPC? Use a firewall. Find out what subnet / IP range they are calling from and block it.

      Better yet, setup a freely available VOIP PBX solution, and drop them into a never-ending honeypot. Let 'em play with that for a while.

      Or... If you can find out what service they are using, shoot an email off to them about how you're not interested in purchasing a book. Use your imagination. Could be fun.

      VOIP puts the control in
      • Wouldn't the calls be gated from the PSTN (IP PSTN IP), and come from the network of your VoIP provider? They couldn't very well be blocked if that's the case.
      • I don't have VOIP, they are calling my land line.

        As far as paying the bills, I do. Utility bills and such at least. The one that's bothering me is calling about a 10 year old sprint bill that I'd swear was paid 10 years ago. It's now up to $1,200 after all their fees. Last I talked to them, I was going to try and pay them as soon as possible.

        Also have some medical bills from being in the emergency room from an asthma attack last winter, and other problems. Who can afford those?
        • With rare exceptions ten year old 'bills' are not collectable. They can't garnishe your wages or report it to credit services(see http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/money/fair-cre d it/fair-crd.htm [gsa.gov]) or even continue contacting you if you tell them to stop. Think of it like a statute of limitations on bills.
          Also most hospital emergency rooms are in hospitals that are publicly funded. As such they can only bill you a limited amount, if any, if your income is below certain levels.
          You can probably tell
        • oops missed a one <URL:http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact. htm>
          Pardon the length, but it's the law (or at least the main one) debt collectors in the US are under.
          Again I'm no expert or Lawyer, but this should give you a clue of where to begin when talking to a real lawyer, which I suggest.

          Mycroft

    • Assuming that you forgot to mention that the bill collectors are calling you in error, I'd write up a short summary and send it to the local newspaper, your local TV station that has an "Eye For The Little Guy" segment, and the equivalent media in Mechanicsburg. The outlets love these public interest stories and you could probably embarrass the book club into calling off their attack dogs in no time flat.

      On the other hand, if you do owe the money then suck it up and write a check. :-)

  • Okay, so we now have a large majority of data *not* going across phone lines and being digital all the way.

    What good are the phone lines nowadays? I'd rather have wireless internet.

    Let's look at current pricing structures:

    rip of the customer pricing

    long distance - charged per call based on distance and time (could be $$/min!!)

    cellular phone - charged per call based on estimated number of minutes and plan (could be $$$/min or >$200/mo)

    cellular data plans - very few are all-you-can-eat - most c

    • I assume you have not looked into cellphone plans in some time. Barring prepaid cellular, the vast majority of plans offer free evening and weekend, free long distance to the continental U.S., and unlimited internet access for $15 (sprint) or $20 (T-Mobile) per month. I agree that wireless internet and VoIP are the future, but I don't think the future is here. Further developments in and distribution of high-speed internet connections are needed first, especially to get coverage like cellphones have.
  • Keeping the regulation of VOIP seperate from traditional phone services is just going to open the door to regulate it differently.. More severely. Things that have not been tolerated on phones thus far will probably be thrusted on VOIP due to the fact that it is still hardly widely used.

  • VoIP not really a phone - more reasons (Score:3, Informative)

    by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @07:40PM (#11214636) Homepage
    1. Phones can work without power, as long as the switch is alive.
    2. A normal phone can be a simple piece of electronics not subject to computer failure modes.
    3. Phone service is circuit switched and reliable. VoIP is packet switched, and thus has much less reliability.
    4. 911 doesn't work well over VoIP.
    5. Even if it did, problems 1-3 would make it something you can't rely on.
    6. People should always have a land line for emergencies. If an emergency occurs and they onle have a VoIP and/or cell and they might suffer tragedy.

    Loss of phone service is expected to endanger life in many cases. It needs to be regulated.

    Loss of VoIP should not be expected to do so, except if people choose to rely on it and not have a landline.

  • 911 Service (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I currently have nothing but VoIP and cell service in my home, and had to recently dial 911, from my VoIP phone, to help my daughter. Since I registered my address with the VoIP company, the EMT's got to my house in 10 mins.

    Now the roaming VoIP boxes would be a lot more complicated, but if you register it when you get it, they can find you quickly.
  • Hey...
    The way I look at the issue is thus:
    (Almost) Everyone who has Windows, has Netmeeting. M$ gave it away for free.
    If you run open source, there's OpenH323 [freesoft.org].
    If you can't make this work, I probably don't want to talk to you anyways. Sure cuts down on the telemarketers!
    ______________________________
    Paranoia is a state of mine...

Slashdot Top Deals

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Close