The Demise of Cheap VOIP

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by pjsmoot, May 9, 2005.

  1. pjsmoot

    pjsmoot Guest

    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?).
    pjsmoot, May 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. pjsmoot

    R-Guy Guest

    Not all ISPs are telcos - I would just switch to an Internet provider that
    doesn't play games.
    R-Guy, May 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. pjsmoot

    Cloaked Guest

    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

    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
    Cloaked, May 9, 2005
  4. pjsmoot

    John Nelson Guest

    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.
    John Nelson, May 9, 2005
  5. pjsmoot

    wkearney99 Guest

    Regulation was required when telephony was a scarce resource. This is
    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.
    wkearney99, May 10, 2005
  6. pjsmoot

    PJ Guest

    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 ?). , ....
    PJ, May 10, 2005
  7. 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
    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 M. Adams, May 10, 2005
  8. pjsmoot

    Vox Humana Guest

    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.
    Vox Humana, May 10, 2005
  9. pjsmoot

    Heimo Hetl Guest

    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.

    Heimo Hetl, May 10, 2005
  10. pjsmoot

    Vox Humana Guest

    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
    Vox Humana, May 10, 2005
  11. pjsmoot

    wkearney99 Guest

    Spoken like someone that doesn't live in an outlying area.
    Sure, sure, and screw 'em if they want a 911 call to actually bring someone
    to save them, right?
    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.
    wkearney99, May 11, 2005
  12. pjsmoot

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Stephen M. Adams wrote:

    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
    Rick Merrill, May 11, 2005
  13. pjsmoot

    PJ Guest

    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.
    PJ, May 11, 2005
  14. pjsmoot

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    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?
    Cheaper to get them ham radios.

    Miguel Cruz, May 11, 2005
  15. pjsmoot

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    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 Cruz, May 11, 2005
  16. pjsmoot

    Rick Merrill Guest

    That's a straw horse if I ever saw one. There is no right to a cell
    phone nor to a voip phone.
    Rick Merrill, May 11, 2005
  17. If, God forbid, I ever found myself in an "outlying area", I still
    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.

    John R. Levine, May 11, 2005
  18. 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.
    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

    Is 911 access now a 'mandatory human right'?
    As Plato said, Democracy will turn into dictatorship, and will fail when
    people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury.
    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 M. Adams, May 11, 2005
  19. 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.
    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 M. Adams, May 11, 2005
  20. pjsmoot

    John Nelson Guest

    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.
    John Nelson, May 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.