Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

FCC ruling on ringtones is... shortsighted

<< < (2/4) > >>

40hz:
It's mostly to give advantage to the land-line die hards.
-wraith808 (June 24, 2014, 10:21 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't think it's so much landline diehards. All the big telcos want out of landline with NO requirement to provide alternative services unless they can sock their customers for a very expensive replacement system.

Cell towers to provide full coverage were supposed to be in place nationwide years ago. But the wireless phone folks concentrated on the areas that gave them the most revenue and dragged their feet about the rest they promised, choosing instead to pocket the cash rather than invest a healthy amount back into their networks. That reinvestment was something they originally promised - and were legally obligated to do. And when it finally hit the fan, rather than just getting it done, these same telcos lobbied Congress and the FCC to be released from the obligations they previously agreed to - and which were a condition of getting the frequency bands that were awarded to them.

All this reg is doing is making it obvious where the delays in getting an actual connection are occurring. It's also a safety issue. Suppose you were checking up on an ageing parent and you worried something bad had happened because nobody answered the phone, not knowing the call never reached them because it was hung up in your wireless carrier’s inadequate and under-provisioned network.  

That's not government meddling. That's just common decency. And a reminder to these companies that they've been handed a fairly free ride, and been allowed to operate as actual and near-monopolies in exchange for their promise to provide reliable telecommunications to ALL users in ALL regions of the country

That was the deal. I hope they succeed in making them stick to it.

wraith808:
All this reg is doing is making it obvious where the delays in getting an actual connection are occurring. It's also a safety issue. Suppose you were checking up on an ageing parent and you worried something bad had happened because nobody answered the phone, not knowing the call never reached them because it was hung up in your wireless carrier’s inadequate and under-provisioned network. 
-40hz (June 24, 2014, 02:12 PM)
--- End quote ---

But that's not what is happening.  As I said, I picked up the phone, and dialed in to work (about a half-hour's drive), and received the message "Your call is being connected, your call is being connected.... your call could not be complet..." And then the line kicked in.  How is that solving the underlying problem?

That's what I mean about the ruling being short sighted.

As far as the cell tower bit... yes, that makes a bit of sense.  But then again... it's still not Vonage.  They made half thought out regulations, and Vonage followed it.

I was making suppositions about the reasons, but the underlying point is still the same... there are more regulations on the books that do nothing like what was intended.  Because they don't understand fully the ramifications before they make a ruling.

40hz:
How is that solving the underlying problem?
-wraith808 (June 24, 2014, 02:55 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think the FCC did as much as they could. They can't directly order the companies to fix problems. They're a regulatory agency. All they can do is pass a regulation and threaten enforcement action if it's ignored. But they're not the cops. And they're also (as they are sometimes forcefully reminded) a creature of Congress. They serve at the pleasure of the Congress. They can have their authority revoked at the stroke of the same pen that created them. So much like the Federal Reserve, they have influence and some narrowly defined authority - but not the final word.

It's up to the courts to rule on whether or not an agency exceeds its mandate or authority - and it's almost entirely up to the Executive Branch and the discretion of the Justice Department whether or not to prosecute or enforce a regulation or law. It's their call. And if there's not sufficient political will and public support (or awareness) behind a law - it often doesn't get enforced. You can't even sue in court to force the government to enforce a law. Ronald Regan wrote the book on that when he simply ordered the Justice Department not to enforce certain laws his administration disagreed with. And the courts ruled he was within the legal authority of his office even though they had a lot of negative comments to make about a President behaving in that manner.

Such is the power of the Executive Office.

So right now, I think the FCC did as much as they could by focusing awareness and drawing attention to where the problem is - and more importantly, who is responsible. If there is sufficient public outcry, it will eventually force our government to do something more concrete. And hopefully address the root of the problem. But until then, don't hold your breath. There's a lot of telco lobby money leaning on Congress and the Senate. And the Congress and the Senate are leaning on the FCC as a result. And it is an election year...
 :-\

wraith808:
So right now, I think the FCC did as much as they could by focusing awareness and drawing attention to where the problem is - and more importantly, who is responsible. If there is sufficient public outcry, it will eventually force our government to do something more concrete. And hopefully address the root of the problem. But until then, don't hold your breath. There's a lot of telco lobby money leaning on Congress and the Senate. And the Congress and the Senate are leaning on the FCC as a result. And it is an election year...
-40hz (June 24, 2014, 06:13 PM)
--- End quote ---

But did it draw attention to the right place?  As shown above, mwb1100 thought it was a Vonage problem.  I think that given that Vonage is who is being paid for service, most people would think that.  The onus should be on the receivers of the handshake, right?

40hz:
So right now, I think the FCC did as much as they could by focusing awareness and drawing attention to where the problem is - and more importantly, who is responsible. If there is sufficient public outcry, it will eventually force our government to do something more concrete. And hopefully address the root of the problem. But until then, don't hold your breath. There's a lot of telco lobby money leaning on Congress and the Senate. And the Congress and the Senate are leaning on the FCC as a result. And it is an election year...
-40hz (June 24, 2014, 06:13 PM)
--- End quote ---

But did it draw attention to the right place?  As shown above, mwb1100 thought it was a Vonage problem.  I think that given that Vonage is who is being paid for service, most people would think that.  The onus should be on the receivers of the handshake, right?
-wraith808 (June 24, 2014, 06:27 PM)
--- End quote ---

You have two problems here. One is an antiquated landline systems that AT&T was allowed to abandon by dumping it on local rural phone companies that were created to take them over and thereby get AT&T off the hook. These are small companies that get a good part of their revenue by charging access fees to outside phone services coming into their system in order to keep subscriber rates down. (Remember these are rural markets that don't have a lot of pricing elasticity.) The system that identifies the inbound call and logs the fees owed adds some delay to the end connection.

The other problem is the big inbound services don't want to pay these access fees. So they have their own systems that attempt routing through the networks using a "least cost" logic. This routing adds additional delays to call completion.

On the local landline end there's not much you can do. These companies are small and sitting on an old and expensive to replace network. Going wireless would be quickest and easiest. But it's also the most fragile in the event of natural disasters. And the question of who is going to build the cell towers, and how much the locals can afford to pay comes into play. And ideally there would need to be at least two players to provide some token competition in the market.

Good luck. The telcos weren't interested in serving that market earlier. That's why they dumped it originally and ignored the promises they made about introducing new technology into that sector. And they certainly aren’t about to do so now that 5G and 6G -  and selling content - is where the money is. So much so that it's why these phone companies are now fighting something that always used to be seen as a given: net neutrality.

So at this point, about the only doable short-term semi-solution is to light a fire under these bigger players. First, because you can't get blood from a stone - and those rural landline companies never had much blood to begin with. Second, because these bigger companies have a legal responsibility for the call connections originating on their own networks. From the article in the OP:

In a Declaratory Ruling issued in February 2012, the FCC clarified that carrier practices that lead to call completion failure and poor call quality may violate the Communications Act's prohibition on unjust and unreasonable practices and violate a carrier's obligations under the Act to refrain from unjust or unreasonable discrimination in practices, facilities, or services.  In a reference to the use of least-cost routing services, the FCC also reminded carriers that they remain responsible for the provision of service to their customers even when they contract with another service provider to carry a call to its destination.
--- End quote ---

Not that any of that stops players from challenging the FCC's authority in court and through direct pleas and favor swapping with elected officials:

Although the FCC also has prohibited Voice over Internet (VoIP) providers from blocking voice calls to or from the traditional telephone network, some VoIP providers have argued to a federal appeals court that the FCC lacks authority under the Communications Act to apply the no-blocking rule to VoIP calls.
--- End quote ---

But it's a step in the right direction until these problematic intercarrier fees gradually get phased out under proposed new regulations.

And, as was noted in the article, once the bone of contention (i.e. fees) is eliminated, it removes the financial incentives to go with least-cost routing schemes, at which point it's expected the connection delay problem will go away.

And like everything, once that problem goes away, rest assured another even worse problem will arise to take it's place. ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page