arl6
join:2001-05-17
Miami Beach, FL | AT&T Beta testing new VOIP service
Taken right off of the AT&T website:
»beta.ataclick.com/ |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA | Makes sense, AT&T can roll out local services without UNE and all that BS. Of course If AT&T becomes Bellsouth who knows what would happen to this. |
|
Derwin0
join:2003-07-16 | Same thing that happened when AT&T was Verizon+BellSouth+SBC. Prices will be higher, and you'll have to pay for an extra phone in the house which of course must be provided by AT&T |
|
The Beer
I Love It When A Plan Comes Together
Premium
join:2001-07-24
Omaha, NE
clubs:
 ·ViaTalk
| said by Derwin0  :
Same thing that happened when AT&T was Verizon+BellSouth+SBC. Prices will be higher, and you'll have to pay for an extra phone in the house which of course must be provided by AT&T
+Qwest +USwest +Northwestern Bell +Pac Bell....yada yada.
I think going back to pre-divesgisture (Sure I spelled that wrong)AKA 1980 may be a little extreme.
After looking over the site the feature set sounds cool.
I welcome the first "Real" telco into the mix!
--
Check Out My VOIP Uptime Report Page @ »www.thevoipforum.com/stats/stats.htm |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to Derwin0
said by Derwin0 :
Same thing that happened when AT&T was Verizon+BellSouth+SBC. Prices will be higher, and you'll have to pay for an extra phone in the house which of course must be provided by AT&T
Or, you could take time to read the actual referenced web page, and discover you're way off. |
|
Derwin0
join:2003-07-16
| said by jester121 :
Or, you could take time to read the actual referenced web page, and discover you're way off.
it was meant as a joke |
|
SevenDegrees
Premium
join:2003-07-11
Miami Beach, FL
| reply to arl6
Interesting site, wonder what TA box that ATT is using. We signed up and will see how it contrasts with Vonage. Also very interested in seeing what technical improvements there are with the TA unit.
--
Thanks so much for your help! |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA | I like the mid call switch feature, where if you are on a call you can switch that call to your cell, or whatever. |
|
floshcannon
join:2003-06-05
Ashland, MO
| reply to arl6
This stuff that AT&T is using could be 8x8's ::
»www.8x8.com/news_events/releases···asp.html
»www.8x8.com/news_events/releases···asp.html |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to clecrupt9
And now you know why some state regulators are worried. Here's an interesting question: Suppose that Verizon, SBC, BellSouth, Qwest, CenturyTel, Alltel, etc. etc. all started up their own VoIP offerings? And suppose they gave very attractive pricing compared to their regulated wireline phone service? (And worse yet, suppose that they suddenly decided that they COULD offer DSL without basic dial tone, if their customer subscribed to a package using their VoIP service? Or maybe they might offer a package that includes DSL, their VoIP, and a "warm" dial tone that ONLY lets you dial 911, but isn't considered "phone service" and doesn't include any taxes?).
To a regulator, especially one that has seen one or more phone companies in their jurisdiction try to shaft customers several dozen different ways, this is a chilling thought. If they also happen to be of the mindset that everyone should be paying some state-mandated taxes or fees via their phone bills (you could put 911 charges in that category, though IMHO it would be better if 911 were funded from the state's general fund, or just about anything other than phone bills), then they are going to be doubly concerned. Of course, you have to wonder if any of that concern is really for their own job security.
Point is that if VoIP remains unregulated, as I believe it should (but with one caveat: We may need to ask for laws that ban broadband providers from blocking access to competitive VoIP offerings - right now no such laws exist, as far as I know), you had better hope that competition is able to tame the potential abuses of the large phone companies. In a fully competitive market, where anyone can start a VoIP company, this will hopefully not be a problem (assuming the regulators can be convinced to mind their own business, and not assume that consumers can't make informed decisions without their help).
Still, there are many horror stories, especially in the business world, of how a major phone company has convinced a customer to switch from a regulated to an unregulated offering (often requiring them to sign a multi-year contract), to the deep regret of whoever got suckered into signing the contract. I would hope that VoIP is never placed into the traditional wireline regulatory scheme (which is hopelessly outdated even for wireline) but consumers may still need some form of additional protection if the big boys enter the market, and (in the case of certain companies) continue to treat customers badly, only now there are no regulations to keep them in check. Who do you call if they suddenly decide you made a couple grand worth of international calls that you know you didn't make, if your state PUC has no jurisdiction? We all hope that sort of thing never becomes a serious issue, but my name isn't Pollyanna.
Just some things to think about - and in case it is not clear from the above, I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that state PUC's should have jurisdiction over VoIP. Even the consumer protection concerns I've mentioned could probably be better handled through whatever branch of state government handles other consumer protection issues (for example, cellular telephony disputes). But the above might help shed a little light on why some regulators seem to be in over-reaction mode right now. Once news of this AT&T beta test gets around, I expect a few more state regulators will start hyperventilating. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| said by WhyADuck :
Once news of this AT&T beta test gets around, I expect a few more state regulators will start hyperventilating.
Good post Duck...
The one good thing is that if this is the impetus for states to go ballistic on the VOIP issue, it sure is nice to have some heavies like T doing the lobbying. One certainly can't expect Vonage or P8 to have much political clout, when they're busy struggling to pay for infrastructure upgrades. |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| reply to WhyADuck
I know some big telco's are looking at a broadband phone solution. Some are reselling other services, some offering their "own" inhouse concept.
Another advantage for a telco is that you can not only offer better service, you can offer service outside your own foot print. British Telecom could sell you diatone in Michigan with a broadband phone offering.
Competition should keep everyone honest. How an ISP could stop you from using any provider you want? SIP is a standard. They could stop you but in the process would stop themselves from offering the same services.
I am now agree that no regulation is needed, but some minor issue's may need to be looked at, but nothing that changes the business model of a broadband phone provider signifigantly.
The point about erroneous calling can be compared to cellular, I continue to see outragous almost gross abuse on a certain providers bills. Even after corrected problems appear again and again. And I wont get into the regular phone company billing, just see Karl's billing article for that. So if anybody make the claim that we need regulation because of dispute resolution, I would urge them to see how the current regulation isnt working.
I dont think you will see near the consumer complaints with broadband phone as landline service, because much of the calling is flat rate and the bills are easy to read, at least compared to what we have now.
In the future I look for a "world" flat rate anyway.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-09 13:38:51] |
|
Sniggs
Iggy is my Hero
Premium
join:2002-09-27
Tonasket, WA
|  reply to SevenDegrees
said by SevenDegrees :
Interesting site, wonder what TA box that ATT is using. We signed up and will see how it contrasts with Vonage. Also very interested in seeing what technical improvements there are with the TA unit.
Really? Did you also notice that you signed up on an unsecure Web page? OOOPS! AT&T kind of blew away their privacy policies, I think... If they can secure the sign up page I might try it.
When I called about the unsecure webpage I got, "Hmmm...wow...that IS a problem...hmmm...I'll have to talk to my supervisor...hmmm...um, err, thanks..."
Sheesh!
--
This stuff CAN give you Brain Damage |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to clecrupt9
clec, some form of regulation is pretty much guaranteed.
If anyone thinks for a second that the states and feds are going to watch VOIP nibble away at their tax revenue bases ($11 billion per year in Minnesota, from what I saw in a recent article), they are very naive.
The next snarl will be when one of the ILECs which is running behind in their own VOIP offering sues AT&T for non-competitive business practices -- if T isn't routing voice over the ILEC's copper at the customer's end, then the ILEC isn't charging access fees.
Between the lawyers and the politicians, trust me -- it will be a mess. |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA | Yeah, it is a mess and with the State's needing more and more money it doesnt look good. |
|
TheMole
join:2001-12-06
Morristown, NJ
| reply to arl6
How it Works |
--
(1) It's either 99¢ or $0.99; not .99¢ (2) It's "so MUCH fun" not "so fun" |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to jester121
But, keep in mind that what state regulators would like to do, and what they are legally permitted to do, may well be two very different things. I'm sure some states would like to regulate wireless/cellular service the same way they regulate wireline telephony, but that isn't going to happen.
What the VoIP providers need to do is emphasize what makes them different from regulated wireline telephony. And they have at least two very convincing arguments in my book. One is that the calls really are just data, virtually indistinguishable from other data on the net. Another is the location independence of the service - the fact that a customer can use the service from any location that has broadband access, be it another state or even another nation - and that not only makes VoIP more similar to wireless than wireline, but also makes it much more of an interstate service.
Also the VoIP companies could play up they advanced features, showing how what they offer now is, and in the future will be less and less like traditional telephony. They need to emphasize that the current "presentation" of the service, using standard telephone equipment, is merely a first step for marketing purposes, to give customers a comfortable interface. But there is no reason that VoIP could not be delivered to the end user over a self contained, wireless handset (would contain the equivalent of an ATA built in) and it is simply a matter of time until this happens.
The companies need to be united in saying that their references to telephony are really marketing-speak, to give customers a comfortable reference point. We refer to a handheld cellular transceiver as a cellular telephone, even though it has very little in common with a traditional telephone. "Under the hood", VoIP has little in common with traditional telephony, even though it (like cellular) has gateways to the PSTN. In the future, VoIP companies will almost certainly carry video in addition to audio (P8 already has that capability) and other functions that would be nearly impossible on the legacy PSTN network could be enabled (for example, instant-messaging type "buddy lists", or maybe something completely new that hasn't even been envisioned yet).
So the main arguments would be:
1) It's data, not voice,
2) It's interstate (sometimes even international), therefore not under the jurisdiction of state agencies,
3) It's more like cell phone service than traditional wireline telephony, and wireless service is mostly not regulated by the states,
4) It's not really telephone service, even though it permits connections to and from the legacy PSTN. It's far more than that, and even the part that appears similar to traditional telephony is only that way by design, for ease in marketing to customers familiar with legacy telephone service.
One other interesting thing to note is that here have always been private communications systems, some of them quite large, that have had connections to the PSTN but were not regulated nor taxed like regular phone service. Some of the largest systems were owned by the railroads. In the late 60's and early 70's, if you worked in a railroad station it was quite possible to route a call over internal railroad company circuits to a switchboard in a distant city and then jump off onto the PSTN. The railroads had thousands of phones (many of which looked nothing like traditional phones) and thousands of miles of circuits, yet they were never taxed or regulated like a "Bell System" company. The government itself also had its own internal systems and circuits, but I suppose that doesn't count. Point is that just because something connects to the PSTN also doesn't necessarily make it "telephone service." |
|
Cam
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Luther, OK
clubs:
| Another example of what you are talking about, WhyADuck, is Amateur Radio.
Amateur Radio has had the ability to interface with the PSTN for decades. "Phone Patches" have been done by Amateur Radio operators for years and years, and there is not a state in the US that has the authority to regulate Amateur Radio. |
|
Slacktron
join:2003-07-17
San Diego, CA
| reply to arl6
That's a very curious diagram MoleKiller. If they do intend to come in front of the firewall/NAT router, they will have to have some fancy tricks up their sleaves.
Most cable modems will only assign one useable IP number, so they would have to do some kind of NAT internally. And double-NAT can be tricky indeed. |
|
DracoFelis
Premium
join:2003-06-15
| reply to clecrupt9
It's trivial for an ISP to filter traffic....
said by clecrupt9 :
Another advantage for a telco is that you can not only offer better service, you can offer service outside your own foot print. British Telecom could sell you diatone in Michigan with a broadband phone offering.
Competition should keep everyone honest. How an ISP could stop you from using any provider you want? SIP is a standard. They could stop you but in the process would stop themselves from offering the same services.
The trouble is, what about ISPs that are also into "telco services"? One of the simmering issues with the internet today, is what about the ISPs that wish to restrict access to "content" from other sources if/when they decide it's time to "play hardball"? With the firewall and router products on the market these days, it would almost be trivial for an ISP to do this sort of "selective filtering"!
For example, lets assume that your broadband ISP decides to offer their own VoIP service. You might say, "competition is good" especially since I have the option to stick with Vonage. However, you are forgetting that ISPs are largely "unregulated", and can do things like refuse to carry certain internet traffic. So what's to stop your ISP from allowing the standard SIP traffic, but only if/when it is with that ISP's own VoIP servers? If your ISP did that, and it's almost trivial to do with today's router and firewall technologies, they could both offer their own "phone service" to their customers, while simultaneously preventing any of the competition from doing the same!
Now granted, I think it would be "sleazy business practice" to shut out competition (by allowing the broadband customers access to only your branded services), but I also don't trust the big broadband ISPs to "play nice". Personally, I think it's only a matter of time, before we start seeing a lot of this sort of "restricted access". Not only is VoIP in danger of this, but really any "rich media" is in the same danger. For example, what about a cable company that allows your "cable modem" access to their own "movies on demand" offering, but blocks your access to competing products? Again, there are no real technical barriers to an ISP pulling this crap, and I can see where it could give a big ISP a real "competitive advantage".
I just hope when it does happen, that the regulators will put in sensible "consumer protection" laws. It would be a real shame, if the internet were to change from an open place where any user can reach just about any contact "out there", into a bunch of "toll roads" that only allow you to access the local (often higher priced) services "approved by" your own ISP....
[text was edited by author 2003-09-09 19:43:03] |
|
