Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CF Rebel who wrote (7523)	7/8/2004 6:16:44 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Hi Reb, As long as enhanced service providers offering VoIP continue to use the subscriber directory databases of the incumbents to complete their calls, and the SS7 network for surveillance and call setups & teardowns, their services will be susceptible to having to pay their way and be regarded as telecommunications services, IMO. Neither of the carriers cited in the article nor any of the other popular seven- or ten- digit VoIP services providers support pure IP telephony through and through, IMO. At least not yet, they don't. And to think, the ILECs have to foot the bill for local number portability in order to facilitate their moving existing numbers over to them, through the use of Local Number Portability platforms and electronic bonding systems. Even though, through the use of IP, in even a hybrid fashion with the PSTN, certain features are feasible where they weren't before. Telephone companies have been introducing enhancements and improvements to their voice networks for eons. They went from telegraphy to telephony, from manual operators to dial tone, from native wire to multiplex, from analog multiplex to digital multiplex, from in-band signaling to out-of-band-SS7, and so on. And they will be (some already have been) deploying VoIP, as it suits their time frames, too. So, why should one group of providers be exempt from paying charges and taxes, while the other, which is supplying the same set of services, is not? This holds true not only for the ILECs but for the IXCs, as AT&T recently found out the hard way. Note that I've not opined on the moral or logical justifications of those taxes and surcharges, but merely asking why discrimination would apply while assuming the mere existence of those charges. FAC ps - yes, I'm playing the advocate... as a consultant I don't air any preferences in areas like this one, I'm simply keeping score ;)