VoIP Services to be Regulated in Canada 159
jeffcm writes "It seems that the CRTC, Canada's equivalent to the FCC has decided that VoIP pricing and services should be regulated. From The Globe & Mail: "The CRTC confirmed that it has rejected arguments from Bell and Telus that VoIP should be left unregulated like other on-line applications. If their argument had won the day, their competitors say, the incumbent phone companies would have been allowed to limit the number of new entrants by slashing prices in the short term.""
Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
I think Amazon is a good analogy. Amazon advertises over the Internet, but they aren't exempt from false advertising laws. They also aren't exempt from sales tax (in some states). etc.
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
False advertising laws serve some purpose though. There once was a time in Canada where all the telephone companies were government owned (I think all of them anyway). There was a great need for the CRTC to prevent abuse by the state monopoly. VOIP will bring almost unlimited competition to the market. I'm not sure if we need to be protected from an expanding free market. I guess it remains to be seen exactly ho
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
There might not be a state monopoly anymore, but the home phone business is definatly still controlled by monopolies. Unless you live in one of the largest cities in the country, there is virtually zero competition. Anywhere that I have lived, the only local phone company has been bell canada. Its the same pretty much all over Ontario. Long distance service is a different matter.
However much I might agree with you in principa
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
That situation is improving [ccnmatthews.com] though. I'm a big fan of Shaw's Internet after suffering through Telus DSL in Edmonton, and MTS DSL here in Winnipeg (which is absolutely the worst service I have ever seen). I'm looking forward to switching my phone over as soon as I can.
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
I'll take the overloaded supernode with a consistent 5Mbit/s. Can't say much for the TV, I don't watch it.
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
They most certainly did here. MTS was privatized in 1996 [findarticles.com], when they had a billion dollars worth of debt at a time when other telecoms in North America were reaping record profits.
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:1)
Mind you, I realize that lobbiests are always trying to make the law enforce technical means of market tampering, but that to me would suggest that the big companies would WANT regulation
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
TFA seemed to point to the idea that, without motherhood, those one or two quasi-mofos would just cut prices to the point that your hyothetical thousands of little VoIPs would be abstract RIPs.
There is some justification to making sure that the competition isn't so darwinian that the con
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:1)
Bad news too, the unregulated internet is on borrowed time. It's already happening.
Regulating Crime (Score:3, Insightful)
There are laws against fraud, which phishing and 419 scams (for example) violate. Those laws don't regulate "the Internet" per se - they regulate the transactions, which use the Internet to reach victims. The Internet i
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:2)
In other words, if you create a PC to PC pure-VoIP system (or an ATA to ATA VoIP system and use analog phones on both ends), no regulation applies.
However, as soon as you want to interface with the PSTN system and get NANP numbers assigned, you have to agree to regulation.
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. To interface with POTS the statement is a tautology, but there is nothing inherent about sending voice over IP that requires POTS.
Stop thinking "telephone" and start thinking "voice communications."
People will, however, hate you for doing that, because they can't charge you an extra $25/mo., or regulate you, for "voice communications," because that power is already in your hands the instant you have an internet connection. I sit here in the US and talk to my friends in England and Germany just fine, and without involving the conventional phone companies or Vonage. The current structure is trying to use their inertia to leverage themselves into an industry that already has no raison d'etre.
But it's true, I don't "phone" them. I "internet" them.
Free your mind and the rest will follow.
KFG
Re:Regulating internet traffic? Hm. (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, if they DO succeed in over-regulating Voice we'll just switch to Video over IP! We're probably headed down that road over the next 5-10 years anyway.
Motorola is supposed to be coming out with a cell phone that, if you're near a computer with a net connection and the right hardware (an access point), will use the net to place your call instead of going through the cell network. Now THAT is what I want!
Re:Switch from an Authoritarian ISP to a Free ISP (Score:1)
Re:Switch from an Authoritarian ISP to a Free ISP (Score:3, Insightful)
... which is why Canada is #3 in cheap, affordable broadband penetration world-wide, and the USA is what, 16th as of last month?
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/62949 [broadbandreports.com]
Re:Switch from an Authoritarian ISP to a Free ISP (Score:2)
>> Would never happen here in the USA anyway
Because it's just too hard to pick pockets when you're holding hands with Saudi royalty?
Oooh, Aaaaah, I dare ya (Score:4, Funny)
It's harder to get a grip on, much less tax on it.
Re:Oooh, Aaaaah, I dare ya (Score:2)
Eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Re:Eh? (Score:1)
There's only one important criterion. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason for the regulation, after all, is to permit competition. Right?
With the VoIP regulation debate, this dichotomy between limited and unlimited resources is often overlooked, when it's actually the only important issue.
The physically shared and limited public connections should be regulated to prevent monopoly. Purely software protocols should be completely immune to regulation.
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Regulation can sometimes serve the masses... (Score:1)
If we admit that VoIP is the future of telephonic communication then we must also agree that entrenched companies offering what is, to the layman, the exact same service, will undoubtedly slash prices to gain penetration until the market is saturated and then begin hiking prices
Re:Regulation can sometimes serve the masses... (Score:1)
Re:Regulation can sometimes serve the masses... (Score:1)
As for the airlines, I'm not sure why everyone is crying foul so fast. Not that I'm personally agreeing with it, but the theory of having direct taxation supporting a popular government includes said government ensuring the availability, affordability and reliability of what are perceived
Re:Regulation can sometimes serve the masses... (Score:2)
I think you actually believe that this is generally true! In this context, the government has already screwed up the telecommunications market, so fiddling with the existing regulations is probably a good idea. Better, though, would be no regulations (other than the usual "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not bear false witness.")
-russ
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting back to the topic at hand... if you're going to allow your VOIP service to communicate both ways (inbound and outbound calls) with people using POTS telephones, you need to bridge the gap. That m
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:2)
And you say that *I* don't seem to get it??
-russ
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:2)
-russ
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:2)
I'm arguing that the big bugaboo -- monopolies -- are almost never seen in the marketplace. The vast majority of the monopolies in your life have been created by government. The market doesn't sustain monopolies for very long. The theory that capitalist economies tend toward bigger and bigger businesses consolidating into one monopoly is simply wrong.
-russ
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:2)
The reason you had a giant oil monopoly (Standard Oil) is because prior to SO, oil was not standardized. SO brought efficiency to the oil market by being the dominant provider. Because they dominated, they set the standard. Because the standard created huge amounts of v
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:2)
Interesting that you believe something so not true. Did you know that you can rent space on poles? FiberGarden.net is going to do exactly that in San Francisco, and sell gigabit Ethernet for $3K/month in certain neighborhoods. Resale will be allowed.
Are you going to let random people like me string up our own cables on public roads across the state?
The answer right now is "yes"
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:2)
Note that your argument applies equally well in favor of busses and against automobiles. Do you really mean to argue against automobiles?
-russ
Re:There's only one important criterion. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The primary raison d'etre of the CRTC is to ensure that a shared, national resource (originally radio spectrum) is used in such way that canadians as a whole benefit.
Yes, time has marched on and telecommunications no longer require airwaves, but the CRTC is still there.
hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
In short, if you resell normal phone service delivered with VoIP tech, you will be regulated. Resistance is futile.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
to make a pots connection with this voip software you need thier service called Skype out. Skype out serive will be regulated, should they try to operate in canada. the basic, free software will not be. As the basic free software simply allows two computers to send voice data over the internet to each other. In order to call a land line, or to allow a land line to call you, you need to pay for the skypeout service.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Skype, while very popular, is not a telco monopoly.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
It'll be regulated just as much as existing cell phone company laws regulate walkie-talkies.
Not quite what it sounds like (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not quite what it sounds like (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not quite what it sounds like (Score:2)
Is this good or bad? (Score:2)
Re:Is this good or bad? (Score:2)
Skype? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Skype? (Score:1)
Yes, we're pretty good at creating bureaucracy when we try. The CRTC isn't even our most heinou
Re:Skype? (Score:2)
For you as an end user, I doubt anything would change. At most, you'd probably see an increase in your Skype-out costs, if you use it. For PC-to-PC, nothing will change, I'm sure (that meaning, my opionion :-)).
Who benefits from reg and who does not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, for those whom compare this to regulating AOL Instant Messenger, the difference, I think, is that you cannot use that sort of client's voice capability to speak to someone using a simple telephone. The entire point of VOIP is that you can.
END COMMUNICATION
This is price regulation, not traffic regulation. (Score:5, Insightful)
This will allow new companies to start offering value-added, non-PSTN phone service without being shut out by the two current major phone service providers using artifically low prices.
Basically, a Good Thing because competition is good.
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:3, Insightful)
-russ
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the "unfair" price will be adjusted downwards. The whole point of the regulation is to prevent what is known in other industries as "dumping", i.e. using size and profitability in other (usually monopolized) markets to outlast a smaller, specialized competitor in a niche market by writing off the losses in this small market which the competitor cannot afford to. In other words: to st
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
You are very optimistic concerning the operation of government. If I told you that companies don't work very well and are terribly inefficient, would you believe me? For all the same reasons, governments don't work very well either.
-russ
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
No I am not. However this particular piece of CRTC activity is of minor impact on the industry and affects only the two major incumbant telcos. It also makes provisions for other more important stuff such as 911 call handling, lack of which already resulted in lost lives. As I said, I personally believe that the measures of this sort are too weak and require micro-managment on the part of regulators (and thus expose the process to inefficiency
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
Ask around for 911 horror stories. There are PLENTY of times when 911 service doesn't work. Example: when my friend down the road from me nearly cut his thumb off with a chop saw, he ran into the house and called 911. No answer! So he called his secretary, whom he knew would be available to call the hospital for him.
And this has nothing to do with VOIP.
its apparent state of equilibrium being an all-poweful oliga
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that this is a reason to not regulate 911 service? To allow some providers to route to, say, a veterinary clinic when you dial 911? I am not sure what are you proposing.
Honestly, where do you people get this idea from
Observation coupled with logical reasoning. In my reply to your other post I indicated several mechanisms by which these things happen. There are many many more. Simply put, in an "efficient" free market, you would
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of the regulation is to prevent what is known in other industries as "dumping", i.e. using size and profitability in other (usually monopolized) markets to outlast a smaller, specialized competitor in a niche market by writing off the losses in this small market which the competitor cannot afford to.
Back in reality, it turns out that companies that try to maintain a monopoly in this manner (predatory pricing) usually never make money on this tactic. It costs them more to maintain their m
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
This is a common mis-conception. It would be true if the markets truly operated as Adam Smith envisioned. But they dont. In a true, "efficient", market, the well-informed and educated (ha!) consumers would always choose based on price/performance ratio and barrier
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:1)
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
A large portion of their customers can switch to VOIP which is dangerous to these phone companies. Now, with the price safely stabalized, the major phone companies don't have to worry
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:2)
You are probably right, although I do understand the motivation of the CTRC. The effectivenes of this regulation will depend how well does CRTC react to market conditions by adjusting the rules. There are also other elements in this such as 911 call provisions, something VOIP services are notorioulsy deficient at and which already resulted in deaths.
Re:This is price regulation, not traffic regulatio (Score:1)
Oh no not again! (Score:1, Troll)
The CRTC does more damage than good, why do we need a bunch of crusty old farts telling us what is and what isn't good.
The reason for all those extra charges on the phone bill is because the CRTC said the telephone companies could do it.
CRTC is also screwing everybody with regards to TV pricing, Digital services are now conditional access, IE it is now technically possible to subscribe to indvidual channels. However, in the CRTC's infinite wisdom we must buy our
Re:Oh no not again! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh no not again! (Score:4, Informative)
The CRTC has nothing to do with your lack of being able to buy channels individually (with the exception of requiring a certain number of those channels to be Canadian). It is the cable/satellite companies that put them into budles. Most cable/satellite companies allow you to purchase digital channels separately.
With analogue cable, the reason they are in bundles is because you just can't flip a switch and enable access to them. They have to go out to your place and setup the connection. It is just easier -- and cheaper for them -- to offer three or so packages than to offer 50 individual channels.
I suggest you read the CRTC website which explains in detail about your beefs. If you are still not happy, file a complaint with them. They surprisenly do go through those things and respond.
Re:Oh no not again! (Score:2)
I despise these Canadian content regulations that we've got... the billion that we're forced to fork over to the CBC each year should be more than enough IMO to encourage Canadian content
New Content Rules (Score:2, Funny)
So no more yakking about last night's Desparate Housewives.
The first bunch of X-Files years are okay though...they were created in Canada.
Well, I hope they make changes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, Asteriks works great with SIP, but is a real beast with MGCP...
So personally I hope that this regulation brings in smaller players who support SIP and will allow me to hook up a local VOIP connection in Victoria...
As an aside - are there any Canadian (preferably in B.C.) users of Asterisk out there who are running a good VOIP setup? If so, what provider do you use?
Re:Well, I hope they make changes... (Score:2, Informative)
I hope that helps. =)
Xtrvd.
Customer of above company.
Re:Well, I hope they make changes... (Score:1)
It's only for the incumbents... (Score:2)
The CRTC, with their infinite wisdom, only want to price regulate the incumbent phone companies to prevent them from squashing competition from smaller players.
The issue I see with this is that those "other players" are basically huge multi billion dollar cable companies. Don't kid yourself, the CRTC WANTS to see Bell and Telus loose a good chunck of their business and then they might lift their regulation stronghold.
Personally I think it's not a good idea to regulate any form of Internet based t
General question on regulation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:General question on regulation... (Score:1)
But why? (Score:2)
Re:But why? (Score:2)
If, however, you lump Skype-out and Skype-in (still beta) with the base probram, you're dealing with the PSTN again. That's where it gets fuzzy. Personally, I don't think it should be fuzzy. I think you should be charged whatever extra for accessing the PSTN. Maybe that'l
Strength of the dollar (Score:2)
Dumb... Dah Dumb Dumb! (Score:1)
What I find interesting is their reasoning for their ruling. To keep the big guys in check so they don't squash the lil' guys with their legislated monopolies. WTF!
What about Microsoft Canada or Union Energy (DUKE Energy) or any number of legislated monopolies that the Canadian government has allowed for decades and done NOTHING about let alone regulate them to protect c
loopholes? (Score:2, Interesting)
But what is a fair price for voip? (Score:2)
I was surprised when voip first came out and you see prices like 29.99 - 34.99 etc. I thought wtf, these companies are in a sense piggy backing on other companies providing high speed to you.
Vonage and them are just providing a termination service. So
People still aren't getting it... (Score:2)
Shaw just recently began offering their VoIP service in Calgary and Edmonton at $55/month for unlimit
Re:People still aren't getting it... (Score:2)
Oh man! not another fee hike (Score:1)
Psst. I have a bridge to sell you. (Score:2)
Since you clearly believe everything that a salesman tells you, I have a bridge spanning the Burrard Inlet that I'm not using that you may be interested in. I'm asking $1000, which is a huge bargain because you could put a toll booth at each end and charge people $10.00 to drive on it - you'll make your money back in less than a year.
Monopolists are regulated, nobody else (Score:5, Informative)
There are two types of local phone companies. Incumbents were given legal monopolies until recently, with Canada following the USA in opening up competition. So Bell Canada, Aliant, Telus and Sasktel are Incumbents in Canada. They all have much more than a 50% market share. This is generally accepted as giving them monopoly power -- the ability to set prices in a manner that no competitor can equal.
All other telephone companies are Competitive. They are startups, or at least new to the phone business. In the USA, the term of art is CLEC, and they range from big cable companies down to one-man shops. (I personally know some of the latter.) They have no market power to speak of. Vonage is not a phone company, at least under US rules, but it does provide something resembling local phone service. (Technically it's reselling the services of other CLECs, such as Focal and Paetec.)
The CRTC decided (it's not formally out yet) that Incumbent local phone companies, whose prices are regulated because they have monopoly power, cannot offer VoIP services at unregulated prices. They can't offer cut-rate service that puts their competitors out of business (remember John D. Rockefeller -- sell cheap until the competitor is gone, then raise the price big time). EVERYBODY ELSE can do as they please. Shaw, Rogers, Vonage, Broadvoice, Yukon Dave's Trading Post and Telephone Service Company -- they can offer VoIP withut price regulation.
The CRTC is doing a far better job than the US FCC has been doing over the past few years. This decision is quite reasonable.
Re:Monopolists are regulated, nobody else (Score:2)
This is really GOOD news.
Bell's customer service SUCKS. They're a monopoly (in Quebec), and they know it.
This regulation (once official) will open up the market to competitors. Already, I have a number in 514 that's "non-bell", for $2.50/month (and 1.1c/min to Montreal and major hubs in Ontario). Bell's service is 20 times that (but offers a flat rate for local calls).
Price regulation (in a price-fixed, over-monopolized market) is a GOOD thing.
S
Beyond VoIP (Score:1)
We need to move beyond VoIP to something that escapes the legacy of the old dialed phone system. That something would be like VoIP, but instead of using phone numbers in the usual way, you use IP addresses and communicate directly. Of course we would not literally use IP addresses to "dial" who we want to speak to; we'd use domain names. You get a domain name, or subdomain name, or whatever. Get a registered domain name, or just a subdomain from some dynamic IP service. And of course it should have str
Re:Beyond VoIP (Score:2)
If only GAIM had voice capabilities, you just convince people to leave it on all the time, and make it "ring" when someone tries to initiate a conversation. Get a telephone-like USB interface that installs itself as a microphone/speaker in your computer and you have a VOIP system disguised as an instant messenger. You could even have it record messages when you're not home!
As far as I can tell the only reason people
Here...have a dose of reality! (Score:2)
To compare apple to apples, Shaw's $55 service is Vonage's $40 or Comwave's $30.
So we already have healthy competition.
Unless you set the minimum to something less than $10, how will this new regulation benefit Canadians if you force companies to raise that price?
Pigs get slaughter, whores get...
Telus is a legal monopoly owning all Yellow pages advertising and if no
before everybody complains... (Score:2)
I still am not convinced it's the right thing to do, but I think it's probably fairly harmless and I can understand why they are doing it.
Rogers, again (Score:3, Insightful)
By Rogers, the dominant Cable company (and thus data supplier).
Since Rogers sells the data pipe, what is the additional "surcharge" needed to support VOIP? Yes, the sale/rental of the converter.
Now, Bell has been told (by the CRTC) that they can't just sell you the VOIP adaptor.
Because... that would hurt Rogers business.
Its a big win by Rogers. Makes them a "Bell" in that they are protected now too.
What IS the value of VOIP (pricing). Why is is NOT a few pennies a month, to support some QOS infrastructure? I pay Rogers for 60GB of traffic a month (used to be unlimited) -- why can't I use that for voice communications? 3 hours of talk a day, compressed, would be 30MB of traffic. Just data.
Is there another reason why Rogers is concerned about WHAT the data is? Oh, yeah, I remember... they are a phone company too (cell phones). So, VOIP would be a great way to charge a LOT more for that 30MB per day.
Ratboy
Socialism at it's worst (Score:2)