VoIP Stays UnregulatedJudge stays the course despite pressure ( old news - 06:28PM Wednesday Jan 21 2004) tags: business · VoIPA US District Judge says he won't be reversing his ruling that keeps VoIP providers from being regulated in Minnesota. US District Judge Michael Davis is sticking to his guns despite kickback from two state agencies and Qwest, who would like to see providers like Vonage face telco-style regulations. As we mentioned late last year, the states are eager to sink their teeth into the potential tax revenue provide by the flood of new VoIP customers, and companies like Qwest hope to reduce the erosion of land-lines to the suddenly booming industry. States also hope that by regulating VoIP, they can ensure the reliability of E-911 deployments as the technology grows more popular. According to CNET, Davis isn't backing down on his decision despite pressure from states, industry, and others. The past few weeks have seen an increase in discussion over the FBI's own push to see VoIP regulated; the agency hopes to force the technology into adhering to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) which requires all phone networks to be "wiretap ready". Despite discussion the past few weeks at Slashdot, TMCNet and our forums, the FBI's push started in earnest last year. In case the FBI can't force regulation upon VoIP providers, they've been working simultaneously with hardware vendors to include back door accessibility. Related:- Speakeasy Latest To Block Free Conference Outfits
- Vonage Apps Released For Blackberry, iPhone
- AT&T Pays For Congressional Investigation Into Google
- Comcast Confirms Homepoint Launch
- AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns
- Google Voice Lets You Use Your Existing Number
- Google: We're Blocking Fewer Nun Calls
- VoIP Generated $21 Billion In Just Six Months
|
  Stewy85 Premium join:2003-01-16 Sharon, WI clubs: | Yeah! WOOHOO! | |
|  |   ronpin Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06 Nirvana | Bush & Ashcroft -- tap this! You can tap my VoIP line when you pry my cold dead mouse off of it. | |
|  |  |   Bigbrother1
@cox.net | Re: Bush & Ashcroft -- tap this! Any one can tap IP traffic, including Voip. | |
|  |   DougAustex
@65.248.x.x
| SBC Sucks! I had a SBC rep stop by today. His business card listed his email address at RoadRunner.com. The old phone system is just that and the tax men and the gov't are all over this. There needs to be a new day and thank God for this judge in Minnesota for having balls of steel. I pay $50 a month in junk fees on my three phone lines at work. Hell, yes! It's time to start over. | |
|  |  |   boogie74
join:2001-06-19 Neenah, WI clubs:
1 edit | Re: SBC Sucks! said by DougAustex: I had a SBC rep stop by today. His business card listed his email address at RoadRunner.com. The old phone system is just that and the tax men and the gov't are all over this. There needs to be a new day and thank God for this judge in Minnesota for having balls of steel. I pay $50 a month in junk fees on my three phone lines at work. Hell, yes! It's time to start over.
Are you just trying to slam SBC? Are you just ignorant of the fact that SBC isn't affected by this? Perhaps it hasn't dawned on you yet that SBC doesn't sell service in Minnesota? Or maybe the fact that Roadrunner.com isn't a domain for AOLTW Roadrunner service...
You really sound intelligent posting this... Why not say that you hate General Motors and that a guy that tried to sell you a new Chevy truck drove into work in a car that said "Fred Mustang" on it?? That would be more intelligent...
Of course you should know that- considering that your IP (since you're not even registered) traces back to MCI marketing. Gee... you must be brilliant now! Unless you have controlling stock in MCI, you don't pay a dime for your phone service at work. Of course, your company hasn't paid a dime for anything anyways... Bankruptcy tends to do that... Hope you like working for the biggest accounting fraud in history!
Boogie | |
|  |  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: SBC Sucks! Interesting, boogie, that you're trying to pin this on MCI.
Given MCI's investment in circuit-switched technology, MCI stands to lose a lot in the transition to VoIP too. Of course, they may be more capable of handling change than the century old local monopolies....
Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |  |  |  |   boogie74
join:2001-06-19 Neenah, WI clubs:
| Re: SBC Sucks! said by calvoiper : Interesting, boogie, that you're trying to pin this on MCI.
Given MCI's investment in circuit-switched technology, MCI stands to lose a lot in the transition to VoIP too. Of course, they may be more capable of handling change than the century old local monopolies....
Calvoiper
MCI's investments in telecom are over 50 years old. They toyed around with microwave transmissions in the 50's.
Boogie | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: SBC Sucks! Wrong again, Boogie.
The original company of the MCI family, Microwave Communications, Inc., was organized on October 3, 1963, largely as a result of efforts by Jack Goeken, a manufacturer's rep for General Electric 2-way radios. Goeken, who was later known for founding AirPhone, wanted a more practical way for his trucking customers to keep in touch with their trucks between Chicago and St. Louis, and his solution involved microwave circuitry. MaBell managed to delay issuance of the first microwave license until August 13, 1969--typically anti-competitive. So MCI wasn't "toying around" with microwaves in the 50's, nor were they in the 60's, save the last five months. MCI's plant isn't more than 35 years old.*
But so what--either way, it proves my point, which is that MCI has a lot at risk from VoIP incursion, too.
Calvoiper
(*Source is MCI's official history, "The History of MCI: The Early Years" by Cantelon {MCI}. The unofficial history, "On the Line" by Kahaner {Warner Books} agrees with the dates, thought it attributes a much more colorful motivation for the company's founding.) -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |   redstepchild Premium join:2002-01-04 Birmingham, AL | Woot WOO! For Now!!! | |
|   LegoPower77 Abecedarian Premium join:2002-08-03 Arlington, VA
| Oh NO!
But, but, if it's unregulated, then the eeevil companies will be able to force us to buy it, become a monopoly and then take advantage of us (not necessarily in that order). -- "Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell | |
|  |   boogie74
join:2001-06-19 Neenah, WI clubs:
| Re: Oh NO! said by LegoPower77 : But, but, if it's unregulated, then the eeevil companies will be able to force us to buy it, become a monopoly and then take advantage of us (not necessarily in that order).
You forgot that once they become a monopoly, then they were paid for with taxes!
Boogie | |
|  |  |   bigmf
@wi.net
| Re: Oh NO! Of course this effects the criminals over at SBC; at least indirectly. Every court in the land that upholds open access is another nail in the cofin of the Bell Monopolies that caused the loss of 1 trillion dollars in private Capital durring the dot com bust. Talking about fraud over at MCI while ignoring the fact that SBC is the most fined on going quasi legal criminal enterprise in the US means nothing. Big Ed and his buddies down in San Antonio should be in in a cell next to Sadam because he and his lobyists have done more to harm America than Sadam and Moooomar combined. | |
|  |  |   GNXPower Got Boost? Premium join:2003-12-18 Huntington Beach, CA
| Sure, like they were in PA when the telco took billions from Joe Taxpayer in exchange for deployment, didn't even come close to their deployment agreement and won't give the money back to the taxpayers who paid it. When SPECIFIC companies are earmarked for preferential treatment by tax authorities IN EXCHANGE FOR DEPLOYMENT...that's tax paid deployment...no matter how you telco shills spin it. -- Mac Truth »members.cox.net/clyqz/macs.html | |
|  ditka_b Premium join:2001-10-05 Barrington, IL | OK OK Let the feds.. Tap into 2-300 hours a week of my wife blabbing on the phone to her sisters\Mom\Friends and see how they like that!!! | |
|  BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15 Everett, MA clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Why a backdoor ??? So some one can just find it and abuse the system... I think not. Voip tapping should be like the rest of the lines in the world tap the provider between em or intercept their packets and decrypt em. It's quite possible if they get on your cable sys or dsl sys to do from a head end or co.. Let em do it there. I for one thing no backdoor is a better idea. backdoors usually lead to security risks.
And don't it figure they only see the tax revenue . Some states just don't get it. We want cheaper prices and want less costs of living. Whats really that hard to understand.
I know this and I hail from taxachusetts. Figure the rest of the states would take a hint from all the companies and workers leaving our state. -- This package does not contain a winner... | |
|   Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs:
·Embarq
| Sad I think it's said that the system works this way. quote: two state agencies and Qwest, who would like to see providers like Vonage face telco-style regulations...states are eager to sink their teeth into the potential tax revenue provide by the flood of new VoIP customers
Shouldn't regulation be based on, ohhhh, whether or not things need to be regulated. Not based on potential tax revenue or some company, "would like to see" it happen. This is what happens when liberals and republicans get in bed with each other and have babies. -- Girls don't really like me That's why I hate myself Maybe it's cause of the way I look Or maybe it's something else »maxolasersquad.com | |
|  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Sad You make a good point, but what you are really asking is whether government should collect taxes based on the real need to fund government programs, rather than politicians' desires to expand their power and patronage bases. Unfortunately, that question was largely answered the wrong way when the US adopted the Constitutional Amendment providing for a general income tax.
Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |  in hoc signo
join:1999-09-12 Atlanta, GA
| I don't know where the moderator got the info on Qwest, but here's what has happened: »www.internetnews.com/bus-news/ar···/3111181 Qwest's Bold VOIP Push By Colin Haley, November 19, 2003 If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's Qwest's (Quote, Chart) new outlook on voice over Internet protocol (define) competitors. Beginning in early December, the Baby Bell will test the service in Minnesota, where a judge effectively exempted VOIP providers from taxes levied on telecoms and ultimately passed along to consumers. "We are becoming one of them," Qwest CEO Dick Notebaert said during a conference call this morning. "Entry into VOIP might be the opportunity to break up the massive regulatory logjam and provide a service customers want."
VOIP may be the catalyst to deregulate the telecom industry. There's a good piece on this in today's Wall Street Journal: "FCC Is Poised to Clarify Future of Internet Phone Calls" By ANNE MARIE SQUEO, »online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1074···ary%5Fhs | |
|  |  |   Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs: | Re: Sad Interesting find. Goes to remind yourself to not take everything you hear (or read) for scripture. | |
|  |  |  kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13 608052427 | Does anybody with a brain really believe that the government isn't setting this up for a substantial new base of revenue? | |
|  ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28 Tucker, GA | Why should they be regulated? Hell, if the FCC will not regulate the cable industry in terms of phone/data networking services, VoIP on a data network should stay as it is. | |
|  |  mc5w
join:2002-06-14 Independence, OH
| Re: Why should they be regulated?
The real utility of VOIP is that you can encrypt your conversation. Then, it does not matter if the government taps the line outside of your house. It takes a kazillion machine years to crack a 128-bit code even if you have an idea as to what the plain text is. For encrypted audio the government's computers would have to figure out what a valid audio track is. | |
|  | |  |
|
|