[Asterisk-biz] Press Release: StanaPhone is No Longer an Interconnected VoIP Provider?

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 13:17 -0400, Chris Mason (Lists) wrote:
> As an offshore provider, mainly to the region but also have sold to US 
> based clients, I can't see how the FCC would be able to stop me selling 
> services to Americans without 911 services. I have no way to know where 
Oddly they didnt put a jurisdictional clause in the statute.  While they
really cant do anything to non US based providers, they dont say
anything about a US based provider who sells to a non-US based customer.
In theory if you sell VoIP and are an interconnected VoIP provider you
have to have 911 service for all customers, even if they arent in the
US.

While that reading is silly, and most likely not what was intended, it
is within the scope of what was written.  Yet another reason why I think
this was poorly written, not well thought out, and needs to be redone.
I also think a clause forcing ILECs and the like to provide e911 service
would be nice (currently they dont have to provide it, especially in a
timely mannor, ensuring that VoIP providers cant market and sell their
services in a given area).

There are just way too many things wrong with the way stuff is written.
The fact that you require broadband of a customer, well GSM doesnt use
that much, so if you support that codec you dont *require* broadband,
one of the items that is required for you to be an interconnected VoIP
provider.

> they live and move to and no status to interface to any existing E911 
> system. I can use a DNS entry  for my termination and move it between 
> companies and servers as I want. As a foreign internet services company, 
> as long as the customer knows they are buying from a non-US company, how 
> would they regulate me? Since I have no Bricks and Mortar installation 
> in the US and no license to operate, there's not much there to regulate. 
> In fact, by using REINVITE, I could terminate offshore then reinvite to 
> a US based server.
They really cant regulate an offshore company, at most they could go
after your provider for selling service to you.  But even then its
questionable becuase your uplink is selling offshore.  Yet naother
loophole that invalidates the whole requirement.

If you are only partially ohhshore then there are things they might be
able to do, but if you are 100% they have no jurisdiction, although that
hasnt stopped the government before :P

> The worst they could do is tell the server company to shut me down, but 
> with DNS, that would be a minor problem.
> I am not trying to get around regulation, but to illustrate how 
> impossible it is to regulate any packet based service.
> 
The regulation is not well though out, not well implemented, and leaves
a lot of ways for providers to get around it.  In effect its 'feel good'
legislation and little else.  It gives too much power to the ILECs to
control their competition, it forces some smaller ITSPs out of business,
but it doesnt really do what it was intended.

-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.sacaug.org/ Sacramento Asterisk Users Group
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20051203/c41c13a2/attachment.pgp