ISPs to start adding fees for VoIP users?

Posts: 58 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 28, 2005 Posts: 58

I heard this on the Kim Komando radio program and I can't believe it.
She was saying that many ISPs are going to start charging an added fee for Voip users, justified because of the added use of bandwidth.
That seems to be a violation of the current agreements. If we are already paying for a given bandwidth, why shouldn't the ISPs live up to their end of the contract? They are trying to get in on the Voip users' exodus from local telcos.

Posts: 60 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject:

And they've been saying for years the Post Office was gonna start charging for emails. I hope this is just another one of the spins companies use as scare tactics.

Posts: 58 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jun 28, 2005 Posts: 58

I wouldn't have given it a thought, but Kim Komando is fairly accurate with her stuff. I can tell you this -- any ISP breaking its contract should either lose their customers or be sued into oblivion.

Posts: 605 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject:

Well they better start charging extra too for people using bittorrent and similar programs. Voip uses barely any bandwidth. I probley use my telephone once a day for about 10 minutes and receive a call once every 3 days. How much bandwidth can that use. On the other hand I pirate movies and music all day and they dont seem to mind that. Pretty soon this is what people are going to start doing to their infrastructure.

Posts: 40 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject:

I agree:

Most of our get broadband because we want a high speed, always on connection. Some of us are sold on a bandwidth speed package. Such as 1.5/300.

Since we pay a more than double the price of dial up, weather it be for convenice or we actually use all the bandwidth.

Who are our serivce providers to say we cannot use all the bandwidth we pay for?

I can see cable companies doing this.. For instance Time warner is offering digital phone for $40/mo over their road runner connection. I was offered a package when I recentley added a digital cable to my account, I told them I have the same service with more features from Vonage for $25/mo

I could see the cable cos "strong arming" people to make them use their phone service then waiving the Voip fee on thier net connection.

Posts: 1424 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject:

There are two arguments here. I am going to deal with the easy one first.

How can ISPs charge Voip users more, isn't it a violation of their terms of service?

Any company can change their terms of service at any time. By agreeing to continue service you agree to the terms of service. If you had a contract for service at a fixed price over a definite period that does not specifically give the ISP the right to alter the terms of service or terminate your service then you might have a case that the ISP could not charge you for Voip use for the remainder of that time period.

If we are already paying for the bandwidth why should the ISPs charge more?

Actually ISPs already have items in their terms of service to prevent excessive use of bandwidth. Many ISPs specifically prohibit running email and web servers and some even block the standard ports.

The problem here is that ISPs sell the same bandwidth over and over again knowing that most customers will not use much.

But if that is the case, why don't ISPs charge more for file sharers who use a lot of bandwidth?

The essential problem here is that the ISPs want a piece of the Voip pie. They can accomplish that by either being your Voip provider or by charging your Voip provider an extra carrier charge. This very charge is something that has been written into the latest telecommunications bill being considered in Washington. With file sharing there typically isn't a service provider who is making money so the ISP has no profits to try to get a cut.

Is there some logic to ISPs charging more for Voip?

New Internet protocols and telecommunication technologies would allow the ISPs to prioritize Voip traffic and guarantee a level of service. Customers who pay this extra fee could be given an SLA (Service Level Agreement) that would reimburse them if there were quality issues that affected their calls. If the ISPs were willing to provide SLAs in return for these extra charges many people would be willing to pay the charge.

What can I do to keep from getting charged for Voip by my ISP?

You can write your representatives and tell them you are against Voip charges as included in the Telecommunications Act of 2005.

If your ISP charges you for Voip then, if you have the option, you can vote with your dollars by switching ISPs.

Isn't the Internet supposed to be free of regulations like this?

No, this is a common misconception. The earliest Internet was for DoD use only. It extended into academics and research and only later into the commercial arena. There is a long history of ISPs restricting content for moral, technical and financial reasons.

Vonage is arguing that ISPs should be treated as a new class of common carrier and that they should not be allowed to block content. This law provides those protections, however it does allow the ISP to charge third parties to deliver content over its network.

It is important to note that even while Vonage maintains networks should be open, Vonage remains closed to the concept of Voip peering with other providers, specifically FWD.

Posts: 60 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:56 pm Post subject:

Well, if that is true about a service level commentment, and priority to Voip traffic maybe I wouldn't mind a small monthly fee. I'm sure it would be like anything other tax though, once started it becomes the new cash cow and get out of hand.

Posts: 233 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:

Well, If there is a charge added then our friends at the broadband companies will open the interest in satellite and fiber. Don't forget the rumors that Vonage is working on a satellite solution with Hughes. Unless our friends at the cable company actually need the income to upgrade equipment I wouldn't get too greedy in today's environment. They may find themselves riding in the same boat as some of the telcos are riding today. If I were the cable companies I might want a piece of the pie, but I would also welcome Vonage because it will keep them out of the stiffer regulations brought onto the telcos to make them open up.

God forbid the governments see this argument. The local cities are already upset they are missing out on taxes.

I will make a new prediction. If the cable companies get ridiculous (most people might pay a small surcharge) then the satellite experimentation will grow and the cable companies will face a new threat from Dish and DirectTV.

May God forgive them for they know not what they do.

Posts: 233 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject:

One other thought: I wonder, if I went down to the local Time Warner office, what the actual Internet loading is on my cable service right now. Probably not much. I must admit they will need to prepare because Voip or a child of it will be the replacement of POTs. They need to be ready for the traffic so they can catch the wave.

Posts: 605 · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:11 pm Post subject:

galion wrote:

I must admit they will need to prepare because Voip or a child of it will be the replacement of POTs. They need to be ready for the traffic so they can catch the wave.

Most people dont have a computer or a high-speed connection. I dont see Voip taking over when this is the case. Alot of people cant even afford a regular telephone let alone 30-70 a month for a high speed connection. Plus if you do not have a computer it would not be cost effective. I currently pay 44.95 a month for internet and 27.24 for Vonage a month. That would be 72.19 a month for someone who does not even have a computer. POTS is the way to go for them. Anyway I just wanted to add my 2 cents.