Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Demise of Cheap VOIP

Tags:
  • VPN
  • IP
  • VoIP
  • Skype
  • Networking
Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 8:43:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

John Dvorak has an article entitled "The Coming Death of Cheap VOIP" in
PC Magazine's May 24th, 2005 issue. He mentions that the telcos will
soon sniff out Skype-like traffic on their networks, and make it
unusable, thereby forcing you to use the telco's VOIP service, or none
at all.

Rather than debate the accuracy of what Dvorak said, I was wondering if
any of you truly tech-savvy guys know whether there are ways to get
around such technical roadblocks (such as encrypting VOIP traffic?).
Thanks.

More about : demise cheap voip

Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:40:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

<pjsmoot@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115595831.859376.192390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> John Dvorak has an article entitled "The Coming Death of Cheap VOIP" in
> PC Magazine's May 24th, 2005 issue. He mentions that the telcos will
> soon sniff out Skype-like traffic on their networks, and make it
> unusable, thereby forcing you to use the telco's VOIP service, or none
> at all.
>
> Rather than debate the accuracy of what Dvorak said, I was wondering if
> any of you truly tech-savvy guys know whether there are ways to get
> around such technical roadblocks (such as encrypting VOIP traffic?).
> Thanks.
>

Not all ISPs are telcos - I would just switch to an Internet provider that
doesn't play games.
May 9, 2005 6:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Well you have to have a high-speed connection to make VOIP work.

I used to be with Telus for ADSL service. But what is the point of
switching to VOIP - which Telus does NOT offer - if you still have to
maintain a POTS line to get your ADSL (and get your VOIP)????

I have switched to Shaw for high speed bundled with Cable. I have
connected to a VOIP provider, and sent the "Port" request for my phone
number.

Telus does not need to worry about blocking my VOIP traffic any more.
Within 3 to 4 weeks, Telus will no longer provide me with ANY form of
service. :) 

The reconfiguration and switch is a net saving of between $45 to $65
per month. This is too large a figure to ignore. AND I get better long
distance rates with my VOIP provider than I EVER did with Telus.

The death of cheap VOIP is likely to come when Telus and other telcos
start bitching and the damn government steps in and starts
"regualting" them. This will drive up the costs for the VOIP service
providers, and they are more than likely to pass on those costs.

What we need to do is pay atttention, and when the government starts
considering regualtion - wirte EVERYONE! Write the CRTC and tell them
to f-off and leave VOIP alone, write your MP and tell him or her that
you DO NOT WANT government involvement in this industry any more.

Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
Ongoing government interference in the market place is not welcome,
and unless you tell them so - LOUDLY - then it is only a matter of
time before they try to find a way to screw the VOIP providers at the
hands of telcos who refuse to step out from behind the shield and
compete in an open market.

Just my $0.02


On 8 May 2005 16:43:51 -0700, pjsmoot@hotmail.com wrote:

>John Dvorak has an article entitled "The Coming Death of Cheap VOIP" in
>PC Magazine's May 24th, 2005 issue. He mentions that the telcos will
>soon sniff out Skype-like traffic on their networks, and make it
>unusable, thereby forcing you to use the telco's VOIP service, or none
>at all.
>
>Rather than debate the accuracy of what Dvorak said, I was wondering if
>any of you truly tech-savvy guys know whether there are ways to get
>around such technical roadblocks (such as encrypting VOIP traffic?).
>Thanks.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 7:32:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article <1115595831.859376.192390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
pjsmoot@hotmail.com says...
> John Dvorak has an article entitled "The Coming Death of Cheap VOIP" in
> PC Magazine's May 24th, 2005 issue. He mentions that the telcos will
> soon sniff out Skype-like traffic on their networks, and make it
> unusable, thereby forcing you to use the telco's VOIP service, or none
> at all.
>
> Rather than debate the accuracy of what Dvorak said, I was wondering if
> any of you truly tech-savvy guys know whether there are ways to get
> around such technical roadblocks (such as encrypting VOIP traffic?).
> Thanks.

Well..., given that the FCC recently fined a telco $15,000 and ordered
them to STOP blocking VOIP traffic on their IP networks, I would have to
say that ol' John has some 'splainin' to do. Perhaps he knows of some
pending regulatory changes that will reflect a 180 degree change in the
current path the FCC is following.

And yes, there most certainly are ways around this.
May 10, 2005 2:05:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

John Nelson wrote:
> In article <1115595831.859376.192390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> pjsmoot@hotmail.com says...
> > John Dvorak has an article entitled "The Coming Death of Cheap
VOIP" in
> > PC Magazine's May 24th, 2005 issue. He mentions that the telcos
will
> > soon sniff out Skype-like traffic on their networks, and make it
> > unusable, thereby forcing you to use the telco's VOIP service, or
none
> > at all.
> >
> > Rather than debate the accuracy of what Dvorak said, I was
wondering if
> > any of you truly tech-savvy guys know whether there are ways to get
> > around such technical roadblocks (such as encrypting VOIP
traffic?).
> > Thanks.
>
> Well..., given that the FCC recently fined a telco $15,000 and
ordered
> them to STOP blocking VOIP traffic on their IP networks, I would have
to
> say that ol' John has some 'splainin' to do. Perhaps he knows of some

> pending regulatory changes that will reflect a 180 degree change in
the
> current path the FCC is following.
>
> And yes, there most certainly are ways around this.

Could you give just a hint of the general categories of what those ways
might be? Like 1.) Encryption of VOIP traffic. , 2.) Encapsulation of
VOIP traffic inside another protocol (L2TP ?). , ....
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:24:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
> no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.

Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.

To blindly call it 'interference' shows a distinct lack of understanding
about the entire range of issues.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> writes:

>> Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
>> no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
>
>Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
>Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
>services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.

As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.

I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
users of the system.

There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
services.

>To blindly call it 'interference' shows a distinct lack of understanding
>about the entire range of issues.

Yes, it's a complex issue. But I haven't seen a convincing argument
as to why the government should guarantee everyone telephone and
internet access, and spread the costs across the entire population.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
May 10, 2005 10:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Hey threadstealers! Heh, I probably posted to the wrong forum. Would
anyone know of a forum that is more nitty gritty tech-oriented re:
VOIP? I'm hoping to find out about the technical ways of getting
around such blocking by the telcos. Thanks.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:28:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human
right'
> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
> users of the system.

Spoken like someone that doesn't live in an outlying area.

> There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
> and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
> services.

Sure, sure, and screw 'em if they want a 911 call to actually bring someone
to save them, right?

> >To blindly call it 'interference' shows a distinct lack of understanding
> >about the entire range of issues.
>
> Yes, it's a complex issue. But I haven't seen a convincing argument
> as to why the government should guarantee everyone telephone and
> internet access, and spread the costs across the entire population.

That you can't be convinced is thankfully different than how the legislators
understand the complexities.

The most basic part of the argument is making communication between all
citizens an equally accessible option. Using regulations to balance the
provisioning of this works quite well.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:01:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
...
> As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
> everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
> of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
>
> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
> users of the system.
>
> There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
> and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
> services.


Yer entitled, as they say, to your opinion, BUT in the opinion of
US courts telephone IS a basic right and cannot be removed without
"due process" - e.g. if you don't pay they cannot just pull your plug.

This is the reason that POTS bills cannot be combined with other bills,
such as cable TV, because the Cable TV CAN be terminated without due
process.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:37:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Jvmdnd-s9MeAtx3fRVn-3w@speakeasy.net...
> > Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
> > no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
>
> Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
> Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
> services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.

There is always broadband over power line. Virtually everyone has electric
power and the lines are maintained by the electric company. People in out
of the way places could eventually get BPL and therefore VOIP. No need for
the phone company.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097131/
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:13:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Vox Humana wrote:

> There is always broadband over power line. Virtually everyone has
> electric
> power and the lines are maintained by the electric company. People in out
> of the way places could eventually get BPL and therefore VOIP.

Forget powerline. It doesn't work. (Well, it does work a little. But it is
susceptible to interference from appliances like microwave ovens and vacuum
cleaners, and it interferes with everything from shortwave to emergency
services' radio. It sure sounded like a promising technology some years
ago, but it just doesn't work.)

However, regulation in many countries requires ISPs to be service neutral.
This is the way to go.

cheers
Heimo

--
l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:33:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Heimo Hetl" <trashcan@hetl.net> wrote in message
news:Cmage.1735$mh2.905@news.chello.at...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > There is always broadband over power line. Virtually everyone has
> > electric
> > power and the lines are maintained by the electric company. People in
out
> > of the way places could eventually get BPL and therefore VOIP.
>
> Forget powerline. It doesn't work. (Well, it does work a little. But it is
> susceptible to interference from appliances like microwave ovens and
vacuum
> cleaners, and it interferes with everything from shortwave to emergency
> services' radio. It sure sounded like a promising technology some years
> ago, but it just doesn't work.)
>
> However, regulation in many countries requires ISPs to be service neutral.
> This is the way to go.
>
Yes, it should be neutral. If I pay for an internet connection, it
shouldn't be any concern of the provider what I transmit as long as it is
legal.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:37:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

wkearney99 <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human
>> right' that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for
>> by all users of the system.
>
> Spoken like someone that doesn't live in an outlying area.

If, God forbid, I ever found myself in an "outlying area", I still wouldn't
expect that choice to be subsidized. Should everyone pay the same taxi fares
regardless of where they live?

>> There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
>> and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
>> services.
>
> Sure, sure, and screw 'em if they want a 911 call to actually bring someone
> to save them, right?

Cheaper to get them ham radios.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:40:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

PJ <pjsmoot@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey threadstealers! Heh, I probably posted to the wrong forum. Would
> anyone know of a forum that is more nitty gritty tech-oriented re:
> VOIP? I'm hoping to find out about the technical ways of getting
> around such blocking by the telcos. Thanks.

If they overtly block apparently VoIP traffic, you just make it look like
something else. Tunnel or whatever.

If they apply some sort of degradation to all traffic other than their own
designated VoIP service, there's nothing you can do but switch ISPs (or
force them to stop by other means).

There, that's settled. Now let's get back to how everyone living alone on a
mountaintop is entitled to a subway station.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:53:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Miguel Cruz wrote:
> PJ <pjsmoot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey threadstealers! Heh, I probably posted to the wrong forum. Would
>>anyone know of a forum that is more nitty gritty tech-oriented re:
>>VOIP? I'm hoping to find out about the technical ways of getting
>>around such blocking by the telcos. Thanks.
>
>
> If they overtly block apparently VoIP traffic, you just make it look like
> something else. Tunnel or whatever.
>
> If they apply some sort of degradation to all traffic other than their own
> designated VoIP service, there's nothing you can do but switch ISPs (or
> force them to stop by other means).
>
> There, that's settled. Now let's get back to how everyone living alone on a
> mountaintop is entitled to a subway station.
>
> miguel

That's a straw horse if I ever saw one. There is no right to a cell
phone nor to a voip phone.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:59:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article <d5qnke015jb@news1.newsguy.com>, adamst@no.spam says...
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
> >> no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
> >
> >Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
> >Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
> >services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.
>
> As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
> everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
> of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
>
> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
> users of the system.

Then you are in the minority. I would maintain that most people, in the
west at least, expect the availability of such utilities as phone
service to be a part of those things their government is responsible
for, if not directly, then through regulation.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:00:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article <1115701503.850511.220460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
pjsmoot@hotmail.com says...

> Could you give just a hint of the general categories of what those ways
> might be? Like 1.) Encryption of VOIP traffic. , 2.) Encapsulation of
> VOIP traffic inside another protocol (L2TP ?). , ....

Yes, VPN. As long as they don't block the ports being used by the
tunnel, there's no way to block what goes through the tunnel.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

>If, God forbid, I ever found myself in an "outlying area", I still
>wouldn't expect that choice to be subsidized. Should everyone pay the
>same taxi fares regardless of where they live?

The point behind universal service is that the more people you can
call, the more useful your phone is. Providing service to people in
the boondocks makes the phones of people in cities more valuable
because they can now call their rustic friends and relatives.

I entirely agree that the administration of USF is screwed up, and
there are a lot better ways to serve very rural areas than spending
$10K to run a pair of copper wires 50 miles across the wilderness, but
the basic network effect is sound.

R's,
John
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:56:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> If, God forbid, I ever found myself in an "outlying area", I still
>> wouldn't expect that choice to be subsidized. Should everyone pay the
>> same taxi fares regardless of where they live?
>
> The point behind universal service is that the more people you can
> call, the more useful your phone is. Providing service to people in
> the boondocks makes the phones of people in cities more valuable
> because they can now call their rustic friends and relatives.
>
> I entirely agree that the administration of USF is screwed up, and
> there are a lot better ways to serve very rural areas than spending
> $10K to run a pair of copper wires 50 miles across the wilderness, but
> the basic network effect is sound.

Sort of, but there are diminishing returns at play. The benefit accruing to
the network effect from $10,000 spent on rural telephone deployment is quite
tiny compared to that realized from the same expenditure in a civilized
area.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:51:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> writes:
>> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
>> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
>> users of the system.
>
>Spoken like someone that doesn't live in an outlying area.

I did for a time. Now, I just escaped broad-band hell, after 10 years.
The brand new subdivision had no infrastructure for anything more than
POTS until about a year ago.

>> There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
>> and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
>> services.
>
>Sure, sure, and screw 'em if they want a 911 call to actually bring someone
>to save them, right?

And there are no other options that wireline phones, with tens if not
hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost per line, charged to ALL other
subscribers?

Is 911 access now a 'mandatory human right'?

>>>To blindly call it 'interference' shows a distinct lack of understanding
>>>about the entire range of issues.
>>
>>Yes, it's a complex issue. But I haven't seen a convincing argument
>>as to why the government should guarantee everyone telephone and
>>internet access, and spread the costs across the entire population.
>
>That you can't be convinced is thankfully different than how the legislators
>understand the complexities.

As Plato said, Democracy will turn into dictatorship, and will fail when
people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury.

>The most basic part of the argument is making communication between all
>citizens an equally accessible option. Using regulations to balance the
>provisioning of this works quite well.

Sorry, but 'easy communication' is not a basic human right. It's a luxury.
The first amendment doesn't require the government to provide you with a
printing press....or any other means of expressing yourself.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 8:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Rick Merrill <jaynehm@comcast.net> writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>..
>> As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
>> everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
>> of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
>>
>> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
>> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
>> users of the system.
>>
>> There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
>> and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
>> services.
>
>Yer entitled, as they say, to your opinion, BUT in the opinion of
>US courts telephone IS a basic right and cannot be removed without
>"due process" - e.g. if you don't pay they cannot just pull your plug.

Yeah, those "we will disconnect you if you don't pay" notices can be
safely ignored, and you can continue to use your phone forever without
paying. Not.

Even utilities like Gas and Electric can be disconnected for non-payment
during the non-winter months in Illinois, and there is no law requiring
them to be turned back on before winter starts.

>This is the reason that POTS bills cannot be combined with other bills,
>such as cable TV, because the Cable TV CAN be terminated without due
>process.

Right. I was imagining things when my ISDN bill and POTS bill came
together back in the old days. Why SBC offers combined billing for
satellite, phone and mobile.

Uh huh.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
....
> Is 911 access now a 'mandatory human right'?

Only if you have a phone in the US. The law (state or federal?) mandates
that the phone company supports 911 (and in some places e911) AND it
says that the phone company can add an amount to support the expense.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 9:17:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> Rick Merrill <jaynehm@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>>..
>>
>>>As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
>>>everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
>>>of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
>>>
>>>I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
>>>that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
>>>users of the system.
>>>
>>>There's a fundamental difference between ensuring basic food, shelted
>>>and access to health care and providing a telephone and/or internet
>>>services.
>>
>>Yer entitled, as they say, to your opinion, BUT in the opinion of
>>US courts telephone IS a basic right and cannot be removed without
>>"due process" - e.g. if you don't pay they cannot just pull your plug.
>
>
> Yeah, those "we will disconnect you if you don't pay" notices can be
> safely ignored, and you can continue to use your phone forever without
> paying. Not.
>
> Even utilities like Gas and Electric can be disconnected for non-payment
> during the non-winter months in Illinois, and there is no law requiring
> them to be turned back on before winter starts.
>
>
>>This is the reason that POTS bills cannot be combined with other bills,
>>such as cable TV, because the Cable TV CAN be terminated without due
>>process.
>
>
> Right. I was imagining things when my ISDN bill and POTS bill came
> together back in the old days. Why SBC offers combined billing for
> satellite, phone and mobile.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> -Stephen

We're probably looking at differences in State laws. In Massachusetts
the POTS phone cannot be discontinued for non-payment without a hearing.
And if there are only people over 65 (I think) then the phone cannot be
disconnected.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

John Nelson <DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> writes:

>In article <d5qnke015jb@news1.newsguy.com>, adamst@no.spam says...
>> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
>> >> no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
>> >
>> >Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
>> >Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
>> >services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.
>>
>> As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
>> everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
>> of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
>>
>> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
>> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
>> users of the system.
>
>Then you are in the minority. I would maintain that most people, in the
>west at least, expect the availability of such utilities as phone
>service to be a part of those things their government is responsible
>for, if not directly, then through regulation.

What's next? Cable TV? A computer? A car? We're talking slippery slope
here...

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:46:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Stephen M. Adams wrote:

> John Nelson <DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> writes:
....
>>Then you are in the minority. I would maintain that most people, in the
>>west at least, expect the availability of such utilities as phone
>>service to be a part of those things their government is responsible
>>for, if not directly, then through regulation.
>
>
> What's next? Cable TV? A computer? A car? We're talking slippery slope
> here...
>
> -Stephen

Slippery slope? You'd better believe it :-)
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:07:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article <d5tquh1262k@news3.newsguy.com>, adamst@no.spam says...
> John Nelson <DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> writes:
>
> >In article <d5qnke015jb@news1.newsguy.com>, adamst@no.spam says...
> >> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
> >> >> no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
> >> >
> >> >Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
> >> >Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
> >> >services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.
> >>
> >> As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
> >> everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
> >> of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
> >> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
> >> users of the system.
> >
> >Then you are in the minority. I would maintain that most people, in the
> >west at least, expect the availability of such utilities as phone
> >service to be a part of those things their government is responsible
> >for, if not directly, then through regulation.
>
> What's next? Cable TV? A computer? A car? We're talking slippery slope
> here...

Rubbish. There is a world of difference between a utility that, among
other things, provides the ability to summon help from the government
agencies that virtually every citizen's tax dollars pay to maintain.
Think fire, police, and medical. And let us be clear, we are NOT talking
about providing these things "for free". We are talking about
regulations that ensure that such things are provided to all customers
at a reasonable rate; one that is nominally affordable for the consumer,
and (at least) nominally profitable for the carrier.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:20:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

John Nelson <DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> writes:

>In article <d5tquh1262k@news3.newsguy.com>, adamst@no.spam says...
>> John Nelson <DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> writes:
>>
>> >In article <d5qnke015jb@news1.newsguy.com>, adamst@no.spam says...
>> >> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
>> >> >> no longer true. The original reasons for regulation no longer exist.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bullshit. Tell that to the family living out in the middle of nowhere.
>> >> >Someone's got to maintain the copper wiring plant for their basic phone
>> >> >services. That's a direct result of regulation and should continue.
>> >>
>> >> As I recall, in exchange for their *monopoly* the telcos agreed to wire
>> >> everything, and were then permitted to recover the costs of wiring 'out
>> >> of the way' places from the entire subscriber base.
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe that a telephone, or the internet, is a 'basic human right'
>> >> that should be guaranteed to everyone by regulation and paid for by all
>> >> users of the system.
>> >
>> >Then you are in the minority. I would maintain that most people, in the
>> >west at least, expect the availability of such utilities as phone
>> >service to be a part of those things their government is responsible
>> >for, if not directly, then through regulation.
>>
>> What's next? Cable TV? A computer? A car? We're talking slippery slope
>> here...
>
>Rubbish. There is a world of difference between a utility that, among
>other things, provides the ability to summon help from the government
>agencies that virtually every citizen's tax dollars pay to maintain.
>Think fire, police, and medical. And let us be clear, we are NOT talking
>about providing these things "for free". We are talking about
>regulations that ensure that such things are provided to all customers
>at a reasonable rate; one that is nominally affordable for the consumer,
>and (at least) nominally profitable for the carrier.

The user of the system does not bear even a remote resemblance of the
actual cost of the system. There are alternatives for summoning aid
to a copper-line telephone. Alternatives that are far cheaper than
forcing the entire rate-base to pay tens of thousands of dollars
PER line to wire remote communities.

And those regulations came about BEFORE 911.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
!