Comments on: Wire-tapping VoIP

By: IXC.UA

IXC.UA — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:47:02 +0000

The FCC also mentioned that it might want to require service providers to offer voice telephony service as a standalone service.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking July 23 aimed at making more spectrum available for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) from four bands: the 1695MHz-1710MHz, 1755MHz-1780MHz, 2020MHz-2025MHz and 2155MHz-2180MHz bands.

By: Fidelia

Fidelia — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:52:28 +0000

This website certainly has all the information I needed concerning this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

By: brian

brian — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:24:34 +0000

As a systems architect working for a major telecom provider, I am bemused by all of the controversy here. Without opining about the merits of CALEA, the whole thing is absurd. If hosted VoIP gets bogged down with all the regulations that traditional telephony has accreted over the years, the industry will be stillborn because its price benefit disappears and because "pure" VoIP is free (to the extent that any Internet service is) and, ultimately, impossible to regulate. I mean, they can make regulations, if they want to look foolish, but bits are not beholden to law; encrypting voice is no harder than encrypting web pages, and detection is prerequisite to enforcement.

In my view, this will do nothing more than accelerate the demise of traditional telephony, and CALEA will be an historical footnote:

"Grandpa, you're fooling me. They didn't really, did they?"

By: Tim Wu

Tim Wu — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 06:23:45 +0000

Let me be clear. I think VoIP and Voice should be treated the same, but only if and when VoIP actually exists in mass form.

I don't think the FCC has gone crazy here -- I just wish they would finish some other business first. CALEA for VoIP is to me something like priority #23.

By: Jeff Wexler

Jeff Wexler — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:46:23 +0000

Well,

I've been active in VoIP with both vendors, marketers, and consulting and I don't have a problem with this.

If you think stop to think about it, the world of VoIP tries really hard to tell everyone that IT WORKS JUST LIKE A REAL TELEPHONE, Makes calls like a REAL telephone, and can be used in place of a REAL telephone call.

So why shouldn't it be treated like a REAL telephone when it comes to wiretapping terrorists or bank robbers or the next Martha Stewart inside trader?

Seems to me the marketing is "working" - but now all the VoIP types are upset that their mesage, "It is a real telephone" is sinking in just a bit too much....

By: John S.

John S. — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:10:51 +0000

Ok, so this will apply to Vonage and other commercial VoIP providers. And according to MP's statement "both instant messaging and 'disintermediated' or 'unmanaged' " VoIP is not included.

Can someone help make sense of this for me, what would make a service "disintermediated" and/or "unmanaged" ? DIsintermediated is having no "middleman" as I understand it -- but it seems this could get blurred as things develop. Also, unmanaged by anyone, or just not by a company? What if using something like iChat's A/V chat becomes THE way to communicate? Or is this just far too unlikely to consider?

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 01:29:02 +0000

Two things seem to be driving this.

1. Telcos are scared to death that they might have an actual competitor that can do their job better than they can.

2. Congress is still upset that they missed their chance to legislate the Internet at large out of existence.

Remember that we are far easier to govern if we can�t talk to each other.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Aug 2004 20:04:18 +0000

It's a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. These rules were not adopted. There's still hope that this can be changed before rules are adopted. True, the NPRM makes tentative conclusions, but it's still just an NPRM. The only part of today's ruling that constitutes an actual rule is that "push to talk" wireless services are subject to the same requirements as ordinary mobile phone service.