Home

Blow to Canadian VoIP

April 7, 2004 - 11:53pm — bmann

Here's a short snippet directly from the CRTC ruling:

As VoIP services provide access to and/or from the PSTN, it is the Commission's preliminary view that they are not retail Internet services, as that term is defined in Order 2001-220, and that the revenues from VoIP services are accordingly contribution-eligible. It is also the Commission's preliminary view that P2P services are retail Internet services and that the revenues from P2P services are accordingly not contribution-eligible.
CRTC: Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol

For now, the CRTC is narrowly defining P2P services as those that don't connect to the PSTN and that don't use 10-digit numbers (a.k.a. the North American Number Plan, NANP). The main point with the ruling is that the CRTC is considering VoIP to be substantially the same as "regular" phone service, since the same service is being delivered. It does not seem to take into account any of the differences, however.

Comments from a few others:

The decision is open for public comment in Gatineau on May 19-20 -- which, as Jeff Pulver notes, also happens to be when VON Canada is happening in Toronto. The deadline to notify of your intent to comment is April 16th.

Comments

April 8, 2004 - 5:07am — smithdm3@bmannc...

Why is the definition "narrow"

If you use the PSTN, you're using it's network resources for signalling and call setup, and so inherently your call isn't Peer-to-Peer. So what if 10%-25% of your calls don't use the PSTN, the bulk will.

April 8, 2004 - 3:37pm — bmann

Check out Telepocalypse

I think he does a good job answering some of these questions:

Are you going to regulate voice chat embedded in multiplayer games? I don’t think so. Are you even going to be able to define VoIP? Detect VoIP traffic? Nope. So the bit that’s left to regulate is the namespace. The digital identity made from telephone number digits.

You can control the issuance of telephone numbers. By definition, you need a central authority to state whether a particular number is already issued and to whom. Centralized things are amenable to definition, detection and regulation. If IP-based voice services want to hook into telephone numbers, then regulate that interface. But don’t regulate a service you can’t even define.

Telepocalypse: Irregular service

So, I have no problem regulating the interface, but the delivery of the service should be excluded -- because you won't be able to apply it evenly. You can't tell voice bits from data bits.

April 8, 2004 - 1:17am — GSoo

why do you think...

court ruled in favor of ISPs against CRIA? In this country the telecommunications lobby is powerful, more so than media. They'll not be disrupted if they can help it.