Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Peter R.

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


Lets take a step back...

I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely 
mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of 
redirecting long distance calls over VOIP.  The customer that I 
mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, 
they are getting it through another ITSP.   The customer has four POTS 
lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 911, and 
those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care of 911 - 
e911 or otherwise.  I have no more responsibility than any other PBX 
vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines.


Who is really at a lot of risk?  The VOIP providers that are promising 
virtual PBX services over the Internet.  A local PBX unit with at 
least one local line is going to always be able to get out, whether 
the Internet is working or not.  The virtual PBX services are heavily 
dependent on the Internet connection working (and working solidly) and 
are toast if the connection is running poorly or completely out.
FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering that 
the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using.  Turns out it 
isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get setup 
the first time around.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Tetherow
One interesting question would be what happens if the POTS line is down, 
but Matt's wonderful wireless network is up? ;)  The customer would have 
voice service but no 911...  Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


Lets take a step back...

I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely 
mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of 
redirecting long distance calls over VOIP.  The customer that I 
mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, 
they are getting it through another ITSP.   The customer has four POTS 
lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 911, and 
those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care of 911 - 
e911 or otherwise.  I have no more responsibility than any other PBX 
vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines.


Who is really at a lot of risk?  The VOIP providers that are promising 
virtual PBX services over the Internet.  A local PBX unit with at 
least one local line is going to always be able to get out, whether 
the Internet is working or not.  The virtual PBX services are heavily 
dependent on the Internet connection working (and working solidly) and 
are toast if the connection is running poorly or completely out.
FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering that 
the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using.  Turns out it 
isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get setup 
the first time around.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Matt Liotta wrote:



On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote:

If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have 
stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. 
You are either forgetting that or ignoring it.  Here is his post again:

http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html

Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is 
not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 depending 
on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are required to 
support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by POTS lines.


Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911 
compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue 
successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell 
service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact I 
have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP 
providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not 
E911 capable.


The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS 
(BUILDING) can be directed that way.  The system Matt described does 
support E911.  Not sure how you are not seeing that.  The only way 
it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number 
of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, 
he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or 
get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ALI information.  You still 
have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant.  It 
just looks like arguing to me.  :-)


I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS 
line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone line 
that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST 
support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate POTS 
line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is compliant.


I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of 
911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't 
been shown to actually be legal.


BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced 
me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong.  You are 
obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the 
system Matt described is NOT compliant.



See above.

-Matt

--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Tetherow
You may be able to hold them to it later but you are still ultimately 
responsible.


If a CPA screws up your taxes, you are still liable for that filing.  
You may have a case against them that you may or may not win in court.  
But you will still have to pay back taxes, and interest at best when 
your CPA screws up, and fines as well at worst.


The same holds true for lawyers.  If the legal advice is bad enough you 
may have a case for negligence and you may get some damages, but 
ultimately you are responsible for your actions and you are not going to 
be able to just pass the buck and say, My lawyer said so.   At best it 
will help mitigate intent.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Peter R. wrote:


Tom,

I have to go with Matt on this.
I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too 
many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to 
either a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney.


You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice 
he just thought up.


Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, 
taxes and CALEA being just a few.
It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is 
concerned, because what is inter-connected).


Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction.

If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not 
so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone 
took crazy @$$ advice from a list member).


- Peter



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Blair Davis
Actually, this is a real good question.  Who would be liable when the 
customer picks up the phone and dials 911 and nothing happens?


Sam Tetherow wrote:

One interesting question would be what happens if the POTS line is 
down, but Matt's wonderful wireless network is up? ;)  The customer 
would have voice service but no 911...  Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


Lets take a step back...

I never wrote anything about offering VOIP or 911 or E911 - I merely 
mentioned selling an Asterisk based phone system that is capable of 
redirecting long distance calls over VOIP.  The customer that I 
mentioned is not getting their long distance through my VOIP system, 
they are getting it through another ITSP.   The customer has four 
POTS lines and the 911 dialplan goes through those four lines for 
911, and those lines are the responsibility of the ILEC to take care 
of 911 - e911 or otherwise.  I have no more responsibility than any 
other PBX vendor who installs a system that uses POTS lines.


Who is really at a lot of risk?  The VOIP providers that are 
promising virtual PBX services over the Internet.  A local PBX unit 
with at least one local line is going to always be able to get out, 
whether the Internet is working or not.  The virtual PBX services are 
heavily dependent on the Internet connection working (and working 
solidly) and are toast if the connection is running poorly or 
completely out.
FWIW, I will have the same e911 functionality on my VOIP offering 
that the CLECs and several major VOIP carriers are using.  Turns out 
it isn't that hard to get setup, it just costs a fair amount to get 
setup the first time around.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Matt Liotta wrote:



On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote:

If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I 
have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS 
E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it.  Here is his 
post again:

http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html

Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is 
not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 
depending on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are 
required to support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by 
POTS lines.


Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911 
compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue 
successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell 
service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact 
I have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP 
providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not 
E911 capable.


The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT 
BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way.  The system Matt 
described does support E911.  Not sure how you are not seeing 
that.  The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is 
over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the 
number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other 
part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his 
ANI/ALI information.  You still have not made a case that what he 
is doing is not compliant.  It just looks like arguing to me.  :-)


I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS 
line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone 
line that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST 
support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate 
POTS line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is 
compliant.


I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of 
911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't 
been shown to actually be legal.


BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced 
me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong.  You are 
obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the 
system Matt described is NOT compliant.



See above.

-Matt

--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/










--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Sam Tetherow
My personal opinion is that if the customer signs a waiver that they 
understand you are not providing 911 support and that if they dial 911 
they get a message that says that 911 is not available from this device 
then you should be covered.  I KNOW that this is contrary to the law, 
I'm just stating my opinion, and obviously the government has decided 
that I need protected from myself...


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Blair Davis wrote:

Actually, this is a real good question.  Who would be liable when the 
customer picks up the phone and dials 911 and nothing happens?


Sam Tetherow wrote:

One interesting question would be what happens if the POTS line is 
down, but Matt's wonderful wireless network is up? ;)  The customer 
would have voice service but no 911...  Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-27 Thread Blake Bowers

Remember, you could still have the costs of defending
that position in a court.

- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS)



My personal opinion is that if the customer signs a waiver that they 
understand you are not providing 911 support and that if they dial 911 
they get a message that says that 911 is not available from this device 
then you should be covered.  I KNOW that this is contrary to the law, I'm 
just stating my opinion, and obviously the government has decided that I 
need protected from myself...


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-25 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Butch Evans wrote:

If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I  
have stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS  
E911. You are either forgetting that or ignoring it.  Here is his  
post again:

http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html

Actually, he never wrote E911 and instead wrote just 911, which is  
not the same thing. A POTS line may or may not support E911 depending  
on the area one is in. Interestingly, VoIP providers are required to  
support E911 even in areas that E911 is not supported by POTS lines.


Some areas even have both POTS and VoIP lines that are E911  
compliant, but the PSAP is not E911 capable. One might argue  
successfully that the VoIP provider is not compliant if they sell  
service in such an area. Unfortunately, the closest thing to a fact I  
have seen in this regard is an FCC comment stating that VoIP  
providers are not allowed to market services in areas that are not  
E911 capable.


The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT  
BUSINESS (BUILDING) can be directed that way.  The system Matt  
described does support E911.  Not sure how you are not seeing  
that.  The only way it does not support E911 is if the building is  
over a certain number of square feet (I don't care to look up the  
number), in which case, he will require a POTS line for the other  
part of the building, or get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ 
ALI information.  You still have not made a case that what he is  
doing is not compliant.  It just looks like arguing to me.  :-)


I've written specifically that it doesn't matter if you have a POTS  
line if there is VoIP service involved. If there is a VoIP phone line  
that is capable of making calls to the PSTN then that line MUST  
support E911. No where has the FCC stated that having a separate POTS  
line that does support E911 along side the VoIP line(s) is compliant.


I agree that providing a POTS line to a business for the purpose of  
911 follows the spirit of the regulation, but unfortunately hasn't  
been shown to actually be legal.


BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced  
me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong.  You are  
obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the  
system Matt described is NOT compliant.



See above.

-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

Peter,

I agree, one should probably not trust list advise without running it by 
their attorney to double check.


However, that does not change my point that most list members do not 
generally just make things up, they instead share their experiences and 
ideas.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS)




Tom,

I have to go with Matt on this.
I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too many 
people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either a CPA, 
state revenue department, or an attorney.


You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he 
just thought up.


Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes 
and CALEA being just a few.
It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is 
concerned, because what is inter-connected).


Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction.

If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not so 
much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took 
crazy @$$ advice from a list member).


- Peter
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

Do you really believe that? I know the comments you made in regard to  911 
compliance I countered with facts I can backup. Therefore, your  ideas on 
911 compliance were either just made up or worse, your  lawyer agreed with 
you on them.


You are making a gross misunderstanding.
I did not make up anything. I simply stated an idea.  I never claimed to 
have any backup for that idea, thats why it was an idea, and I was inquiring 
this lsit full of experts.
I never gave advise on the topic, nor did I ever say what I was suggesting 
was right.
I am very new on this topic (VOIP E911 Compliant) and by no way represented 
myself as the expert in the debate.
However, I dod recognize myself as an inteligent person who is capable of 
bringing up thought that other WISP might also think about when considering 
how they plan to offer VOIP.


I hadn't been that worried about compliance. My plan had always been to use 
you for my VOIP, because you were compliant. However, I as well need to 
consider how I will be able to be compliant when using your services as 
well.  Its an area I need to learn about and understand.


If you didn't check your ideas  against the FCC's order, asked an FCC 
staffer for an opinion, or  verified them with a lawyer then my statement 
above --no matter how  disrespectful you may find it-- would seemingly be 
correct.


I didn't think you were directing the making things up at me specifically, 
but maybe you were based on your responses.
Just because I question you, does not mean that I think you are wrong. If 
anything you should feel honored, as I a mrespecting you as an individual 
that may have the answers to the question or situations that I bring up.


I'm all for people thinking for themselves, looking, and sharing ways  to 
deal with regulations as they come up. However, when one's  contributions 
to such a discussion is not informed then I don't think  it helps anyone 
survive, save money, or stay competitive.


Another one of your annoying responses
Are you saying you are better than others on this list (such as me), and 
only a select few have the right to have an opinion worthy to discuss with 
you?
I'd argue that your comments on this thread had pretty much been worthless 
until certain people challenged your point of view, and forced you to 
disclose in more detail the reasons to backup your statements.  Your backup 
explanations WERE VERY VALUABLE to the readers.  But you didn't get that 
information out all by yourself.  It required people proding you and 
challenging you to challenge yourself to disclose the answers.  I'd argue 
that an open list to all members of any level for discussion is more 
valueable for everyone.
If you don't agree with that, I'm not sure why you are discussing VOIP on an 
open WISP list, instead you should set up a list for the ELITE VOIP 
operator.


Again, in order to use a lawyer in such a manner then you must be 
informed. How can you suggest possibilities to your lawyer if you  haven't 
read the order?


I agree, I as well as any otehr WISP considering VOIP should probably read 
the order.


Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a  technical 
issue. I don't care how much council you get and how good  they are, 
Lawyers rarely understand the minute details that  differentiate 
technical issues. Historically, even the best  lawyers, tend to be 
technically challenged.  I know I service them  daily.  Why, because 
their time is more valuable, so they pay  others to learn the technical 
stuff for them.   I don't trust a  lawyer any more than a congressman to 
understand detailed technical  issues of our industry, that we have 
trouble understanding  ourselves as the experts in it everyday full time. 
(no disrepect  meant to the legal profession, and there are some legal 
council  that are technically savy of course, some that have even advised 
on  this list).


I think you have just made a gross generalization about an entire 
industry. For example, patent attorneys are required to have a  technical 
background and often possess a Phd in their field of  specialization. 
Additionally, I know for a fact that several of our  attorneys are more 
knowledgeable about the PSTN and 911 both legally  and technically than I 
am.


Good for you, if you found them (attorney that is both technical and legal 
expertised), and can afford them.


Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate  costs, 
when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places  to learn 
other than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments,  learning at trade 
shows, or reading common publications.  I don't  see much Making it up. 
Although I do see a lot of IDEAS.


Please point me to FCC comments, trade show presentations, or 
publications that you used for your ideas. Certainly, without those 
sources then those ideas must be made up.


My idea was made up, that is the definition of an idea. Someone having 
original thought. 

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

Mac,

Well said.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: RE: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS)



If you are looking for some specialty advice (like VoIP)- you better pay 
for
it! If you are taking the advice you get off ANY list to heart and trying 
to

take it to the bank - you are in trouble. I agree with Tom in that his
(Matt's) post was disrespectful and I agree with Larsen in his belief that
as long as there is a POTS line into the business ALONG with the VoIP and 
*
server - then the 911 issue has been met/fulfilled. Once again - this is 
how

you and your attorney would read this and interpret the language. I have a
corporate attorney who owns 20% of Maximum Access (my wireless company)and
he agrees with mine and Larsen's interpretation of the language. No one 
said

we were lighting up MTU's as that language is plainly spelled out not to
mention the scenario that Matt L. pointed out.

One more thing - - If Larsen posts on list that there are great demon
Chicken Hawks from hell raiding the Chicken Coops all over West and they 
are

headed our way - - - you better put the Chickens in your bed room or be
prepared to suffer loss!! There are a handful of men on this list that 
have
my utmost respect and complete trust. Larsen is one of these men as well 
as

Scriv, Harnish and Butch boy Evans who have earned a place in the wireless
society that have proven themselves to anyone and everyone that has taken
the time to sit down and get to know them. I know there are more on this
list and other lists, but these guys have a Carte Blanche in my book 
because

I do know them - I know their hearts and minds, I know their intent is
always for the betterment of Wireless and whomever it may be that they are
speaking to on whatever the subject may be - period. These guys are the 
guys

who would eat dirt before they intentionally steered one man astray in any
avenue in life - period.

Keep in mind they are NOT beyond making a mistake! - :-)

Mac Dearman



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering
-Skype,Yahoo, MS)

Tom,

I have to go with Matt on this.
I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too
many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either
a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney.

You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he
just thought up.

Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes
and CALEA being just a few.
It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is
concerned, because what is inter-connected).

Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction.

If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not
so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took
crazy @$$ advice from a list member).

- Peter
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-24 Thread Matt Liotta

On Jun 23, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Many on this list like  to just make things up as opposed to  
getting an actual legal opinion  from a practicing attorney that  
specializes in this field.


I'm not aware of that going on much at all on this list, its just  
not true.


Do you really believe that? I know the comments you made in regard to  
911 compliance I countered with facts I can backup. Therefore, your  
ideas on 911 compliance were either just made up or worse, your  
lawyer agreed with you on them. If you didn't check your ideas  
against the FCC's order, asked an FCC staffer for an opinion, or  
verified them with a lawyer then my statement above --no matter how  
disrespectful you may find it-- would seemingly be correct.


Instead what people on this list do is THINK for themselves. They  
look for possible ways to get around the rules, and debate the  
validity of those possibilities.
Why, because its how small independant providers survive, save  
money, stay competitive, and have the oportunity to deploy services  
in this industry, that so many want to see prevented or to over  
incumber the small provider so they go away.


I'm all for people thinking for themselves, looking, and sharing ways  
to deal with regulations as they come up. However, when one's  
contributions to such a discussion is not informed then I don't think  
it helps anyone survive, save money, or stay competitive.


Secondly, a Lawyer is like an Accountant, in the sense that they  
are liable for the advice that they give, and their job is not to  
advise you how to get around the law, but instead how to comply to  
it with certainty, in a way that they will not be liable if they  
are wrong, instead stretching the rules for everything they can get  
out of it.  Its up to the client to push the limits, based on the  
advise legal council has made them aware of and risk involved  
walking the line close.


Again, in order to use a lawyer in such a manner then you must be  
informed. How can you suggest possibilities to your lawyer if you  
haven't read the order?


Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a  
technical issue. I don't care how much council you get and how good  
they are, Lawyers rarely understand the minute details that  
differentiate technical issues. Historically, even the best  
lawyers, tend to be technically challenged.  I know I service them  
daily.  Why, because their time is more valuable, so they pay  
others to learn the technical stuff for them.   I don't trust a  
lawyer any more than a congressman to understand detailed technical  
issues of our industry, that we have trouble understanding  
ourselves as the experts in it everyday full time.  (no disrepect  
meant to the legal profession, and there are some legal council  
that are technically savy of course, some that have even advised on  
this list).


I think you have just made a gross generalization about an entire  
industry. For example, patent attorneys are required to have a  
technical background and often possess a Phd in their field of  
specialization. Additionally, I know for a fact that several of our  
attorneys are more knowledgeable about the PSTN and 911 both legally  
and technically than I am.


Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate  
costs, when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places  
to learn other than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments,  
learning at trade shows, or reading common publications.  I don't  
see much Making it up.  Although I do see a lot of IDEAS.


Please point me to FCC comments, trade show presentations, or  
publications that you used for your ideas. Certainly, without those  
sources then those ideas must be made up.


Fifthly, Sometimes people don't pay legal council because its just  
not cost effective during the idea phase. I'm sure most people do  
consult council, just like you, at the appropriate time.


What is the appropriate time? Before or after one has stated publicly  
on a mailing list their position. You don't think that if someone has  
a serious injury due to the failure of a 911 call that public  
archives might be searched to see if the offending organization was  
negligent.


If you think paying council, is discovering the complete  
undisputable answer, you are fooling yourself.  Thats why they have  
judges. To determine which point of view is correct, when the point  
of view between two legal teams on a toipic differ.  Your legal  
council, is just one preception of the law. And I'm interested in  
hearing your perceptions as well, as the perceptions of the others  
on this list.


The correct answer isn't as important as a legally defendable answer.  
If I am advised by counsel that I am complying with the law and am  
later found not to be by a judge then my lawyer is at fault.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Your agree with Larsen for what reason?

Did you know that currently five states require PBXs of all varieties  
to support E911? In fact, only three states specifically state that  
PBX vendors are not required to support E911. That leaves forty-two  
states in a legal grey area. Of course, the FCC issued a NPRM last  
year giving all states one year to pass legislation on this issue and  
warned that if they don't, the FCC will introduce national rules.


Finally, I'd like to point out that my wife is a lawyer, but I don't  
seek her advice on telecom law. Why? Because that isn't her  
speciality. I hope your corporate attorney is a telecom specialist or  
you may want to seek the advice of someone in your field of law.


-Matt

On Jun 23, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Mac Dearman wrote:

If you are looking for some specialty advice (like VoIP)- you  
better pay for
it! If you are taking the advice you get off ANY list to heart and  
trying to

take it to the bank - you are in trouble. I agree with Tom in that his
(Matt's) post was disrespectful and I agree with Larsen in his  
belief that
as long as there is a POTS line into the business ALONG with the  
VoIP and *
server - then the 911 issue has been met/fulfilled. Once again -  
this is how
you and your attorney would read this and interpret the language. I  
have a
corporate attorney who owns 20% of Maximum Access (my wireless  
company)and
he agrees with mine and Larsen's interpretation of the language. No  
one said
we were lighting up MTU's as that language is plainly spelled out  
not to

mention the scenario that Matt L. pointed out.

 One more thing - - If Larsen posts on list that there are great demon
Chicken Hawks from hell raiding the Chicken Coops all over West and  
they are
headed our way - - - you better put the Chickens in your bed room  
or be
prepared to suffer loss!! There are a handful of men on this list  
that have
my utmost respect and complete trust. Larsen is one of these men as  
well as
Scriv, Harnish and Butch boy Evans who have earned a place in the  
wireless
society that have proven themselves to anyone and everyone that has  
taken
the time to sit down and get to know them. I know there are more on  
this
list and other lists, but these guys have a Carte Blanche in my  
book because

I do know them - I know their hearts and minds, I know their intent is
always for the betterment of Wireless and whomever it may be that  
they are
speaking to on whatever the subject may be - period. These guys are  
the guys
who would eat dirt before they intentionally steered one man astray  
in any

avenue in life - period.

Keep in mind they are NOT beyond making a mistake! - :-)

Mac Dearman



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service  
offering

-Skype,Yahoo, MS)

Tom,

I have to go with Matt on this.
I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too
many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to  
either

a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney.

You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you  
advice he

just thought up.

Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911,  
taxes

and CALEA being just a few.
It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is
concerned, because what is inter-connected).

Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction.

If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not
so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone  
took

crazy @$$ advice from a list member).

- Peter
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-24 Thread Butch Evans

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Matt Liotta wrote:


Your agree with Larsen for what reason?

Did you know that currently five states require PBXs of all 
varieties to support E911? In fact, only three states specifically 
state that PBX vendors


If you look at what Matt Larsen posted, you will see that (as I have 
stated twice and he stated originally) that his PBX SUPPORTS E911. 
You are either forgetting that or ignoring it.  Here is his post 
again:

http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-June/026359.html

In that post, he said: One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to 
specialize in the phone systems and make sure that they keep at 
least one POTS line.


The reason for the POTS line is so that 911 calls FROM THAT BUSINESS 
(BUILDING) can be directed that way.  The system Matt described does 
support E911.  Not sure how you are not seeing that.  The only way 
it does not support E911 is if the building is over a certain number 
of square feet (I don't care to look up the number), in which case, 
he will require a POTS line for the other part of the building, or 
get the POTS provider to accept his ANI/ALI information.  You still 
have not made a case that what he is doing is not compliant.  It 
just looks like arguing to me.  :-)


BTW, I am not saying you are wrong here, but you have not convinced 
me (or apparently some others) that Matt is wrong.  You are 
obviously very informed here, so please explain exactly HOW the 
system Matt described is NOT compliant.



--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
http://www.butchevans.com/
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-23 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 23, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Butch Evans wrote:

The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone  
system.  This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that  
has a POTS line terminated in it.  Some traffic is routed via VoIP  
offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to  
the POTs line.  The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since  
that is where it is installed.  I'd say (though IANAL), this would  
be no different from installing a normal PBX in a building with  
some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not  
have it's own POTs lines).  You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal  
are you?


I am not suggesting anything is illegal. I am informing the list of  
what is compliant based on research I conducted, comments made by the  
FCC, legal advise received from council, etc. Many on this list like  
to just make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion  
from a practicing attorney that specializes in this field.


Anyway, the test is whether your provide a VoIP service that is  
connected to the PSTN and that VoIP service is capable of E911. Your  
customer could be the PSAP and still not be compliant if your VoIP  
service isn't capable of E911. Further, there are 911 compliance  
issues for PBX vendors as well. If your customer is in an MTU and the  
911 operator only has the address of a building how is someone going  
to be directed to the correct floor or the correct room? That  
information is now supposed to be provided as well.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-23 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

I really appreciate your advice given on this list, as it is usually good 
credable advice, it helps direct people (including myself) in the right 
direction, and prevents replicating the wheel, by you sharing your knowledge 
learned.  However, somethings you say, are just disrespectful and irritate 
me (no disrespect meant). For example:


Many on this list like  to just make things up as opposed to getting an 
actual legal opinion  from a practicing attorney that specializes in this 
field.


I'm not aware of that going on much at all on this list, its just not true.

Instead what people on this list do is THINK for themselves. They look for 
possible ways to get around the rules, and debate the validity of those 
possibilities.
Why, because its how small independant providers survive, save money, stay 
competitive, and have the oportunity to deploy services in this industry, 
that so many want to see prevented or to over incumber the small provider so 
they go away.


Secondly, a Lawyer is like an Accountant, in the sense that they are liable 
for the advice that they give, and their job is not to advise you how to get 
around the law, but instead how to comply to it with certainty, in a way 
that they will not be liable if they are wrong, instead stretching the rules 
for everything they can get out of it.  Its up to the client to push the 
limits, based on the advise legal council has made them aware of and risk 
involved walking the line close.


Thirdly, regulation is not just a legal issue, it is also a technical issue. 
I don't care how much council you get and how good they are, Lawyers rarely 
understand the minute details that differentiate technical issues. 
Historically, even the best lawyers, tend to be technically challenged.  I 
know I service them daily.  Why, because their time is more valuable, so 
they pay others to learn the technical stuff for them.   I don't trust a 
lawyer any more than a congressman to understand detailed technical issues 
of our industry, that we have trouble understanding ourselves as the experts 
in it everyday full time.  (no disrepect meant to the legal profession, and 
there are some legal council that are technically savy of course, some that 
have even advised on this list).


Fourthly, Why should everyone pay for legal council and replicate costs, 
when we can share knowledge learned. There are many places to learn other 
than jsut legal council. Studying FCC comments, learning at trade shows, or 
reading common publications.  I don't see much Making it up.  Although I 
do see a lot of IDEAS.


Fifthly, Sometimes people don't pay legal council because its just not cost 
effective during the idea phase. I'm sure most people do consult council, 
just like you, at the appropriate time.


If you think paying council, is discovering the complete undisputable 
answer, you are fooling yourself.  Thats why they have judges. To determine 
which point of view is correct, when the point of view between two legal 
teams on a toipic differ.  Your legal council, is just one preception of the 
law. And I'm interested in hearing your perceptions as well, as the 
perceptions of the others on this list.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)





On Jun 23, 2006, at 12:20 AM, Butch Evans wrote:

The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone  system. 
This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that  has a POTS line 
terminated in it.  Some traffic is routed via VoIP  offerings available 
on the net, while other traffic is routed to  the POTs line.  The ANI/ALI 
would be the business location, since  that is where it is installed. 
I'd say (though IANAL), this would  be no different from installing a 
normal PBX in a building with  some POTs lines and a T1 to another 
office (which may or may not  have it's own POTs lines).  You're not 
suggesting THOSE are illegal  are you?


I am not suggesting anything is illegal. I am informing the list of  what 
is compliant based on research I conducted, comments made by the  FCC, 
legal advise received from council, etc. Many on this list like  to just 
make things up as opposed to getting an actual legal opinion  from a 
practicing attorney that specializes in this field.


Anyway, the test is whether your provide a VoIP service that is  connected 
to the PSTN and that VoIP service is capable of E911. Your  customer could 
be the PSAP and still not be compliant if your VoIP  service isn't capable 
of E911. Further, there are 911 compliance  issues for PBX vendors as 
well. If your customer is in an MTU and the  911 operator only has the 
address of a building how is someone going  to be directed to the correct 
floor or the correct

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-23 Thread Peter R.

Tom,

I have to go with Matt on this.
I am on a lot of lists, so they get confused, but I have seen way too 
many people ask for advice on listservs that should have gone to either 
a CPA, state revenue department, or an attorney.


You have no real idea who is replying. He could be giving you advice he 
just thought up.


Telecom, especially voice, has specific legal requirements - E911, taxes 
and CALEA being just a few.
It varies in each state. It varies in each situation (when VoIP is 
concerned, because what is inter-connected).


Laws about leases and right of way also vary by jurisdiction.

If you advice from a CPA or lawyer, you can hold them to it later. Not 
so much the list poster, cuz how do you find [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Although I am sure a lawsuit will someday be filed because someone took 
crazy @$$ advice from a list member).


- Peter
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-22 Thread Butch Evans

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Matt Liotta wrote:

That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which 
will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through 
it.


However, according to what Matt Larsen described this ANI info will 
point to the business (and building) that the POTS line is installed 
in.  Matt is not so much intercepting 911 traffic as he is 
directing 911 traffic.


The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone 
system.  This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has 
a POTS line terminated in it.  Some traffic is routed via VoIP 
offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the 
POTs line.  The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that 
is where it is installed.  I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no 
different from installing a normal PBX in a building with some 
POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have 
it's own POTs lines).  You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are 
you?


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
http://www.butchevans.com/
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-21 Thread tonylist
Yes they are, you have to ask for them but ATT offers these services to
business. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

Businesses with multiple lines and many employees are not able to buy
unmetered service.

-Matt

On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:

 It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
 distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 
 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have 
 to be paying the subscriber money back

 Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
 assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
 ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
 seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
 customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
 typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
 distance not available?

 Rich

 - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

 Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates 
 are so cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs 
 by moving to voip.

 They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per 
 month on long distance with our VoIP service.

 -Matt

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service  
for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with  
council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911  
compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may  
provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific  
service for compliance.


-Matt


On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone  
systems and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then,  
even with a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit  
limited) capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also  
to handle 911.
I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone  
system to a small business for  around $2500, phones included.   
There was a considerable amount of profit margin in that amount,  
and it beat the nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer  
picked up my 1meg Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying  
$50/month for 3000 minutes of long distance and a toll free line.   
I also get at least $35 every time they need a change made to their  
phone service (new phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the  
911 and local dial tone is all on the POTS lines, you clevely  
sidestep that risk.  This beats the heck out of trying to do the  
outsourced PBX service, because they have hardware onsite and  
flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, including  
land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a  
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some  
will try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily)  
about VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170% 
5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html)


Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners  
mess, I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know  
what the Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is  
difficult. When you take over the dial-tone of a business, you  
better make sure that you have 5 Nines of reliability with  
redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, they are  
losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making  
any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in  
income. MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the  
network, charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate  
the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have  
25k customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you  
have to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but  
these same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At  
a 15% take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and  
using Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be  
profitable, before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service  
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but  
not the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard  
that song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the  
few out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc.  
good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be  
made over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend  
for DSL and cable companies to mess up other people's voip  
continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell phones  
will be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge to get  
there. Of course, I'm talking residential users... business users  
are a little different... although we will never switch our  
business lines (12 of them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call  
that sounded as good as a POTS line... :)


Call us then. Or better yet, send us a fax, which is the real test of  
VoIP quality. VoIP will never be circuit switched, but it is good  
enough to the point that without testing equipment an end user can't  
tell the difference. Except of course the reduction in cost and the  
increase in functionality afforded by VoIP.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
There are major LECs using VoIP internally while providing analog 
service to their customers. Therefore, it is quite possible you have had 
conversations over a VoIP network using your POTS lines without even 
knowing it. Further, the percentage likelihood that you will have such a 
phone call in the future is increasing steadily.


VoIP is a disruptive technology that will forever change the landscape 
of telecom. In a short number of years, VoIP will be more heavily used 
than POTS by consumers. In fact, many people speculate that the RBOCs 
have projections that tell them when to switch from POTS to Voice over 
DSL from a revenue/expense standpoint. They are ready to do it now.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:

You may have the very best VoIP system with the least latency, highest 
call quality, etc but it still is not the same as a POTS line.


The real test is when you call someone from a VoIP line to a cell 
phone... that's when you get echo, delay and noise to the point that 
you end up talking over each other, etc. I have been on the cell phone 
end of MANY calls like this, from MANY different companies around the 
US. Every single one of them was using VoIP (from many different 
providers). Having a shared pipe (VoIP) will just never be the same 
as a dedicated pipe (POTS). :)


Granted, VoIP may be good enough for 99% of the people, but personally 
I guess I fall into the 1%. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:



On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell phones  
will be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge to get  
there. Of course, I'm talking residential users... business users  
are a little different... although we will never switch our  
business lines (12 of them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call  
that sounded as good as a POTS line... :)


Call us then. Or better yet, send us a fax, which is the real test 
of  VoIP quality. VoIP will never be circuit switched, but it is 
good  enough to the point that without testing equipment an end user 
can't  tell the difference. Except of course the reduction in cost 
and the  increase in functionality afforded by VoIP.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

I will have to find the article I read about a year ago regarding VoIP 
and POTS and cellular. It shows that even with the number of people that 
are switching, it is still VERY small when compared with the number that 
still have POTS and will continue to keep their land lines.


In our area, the big switch is not to VoIP but rather to cell phones. 
There are many products on the market now that allow you to plug a cell 
phone into your normal phone wiring in the home and then port your 
number to the cell phone. Thus, you save money, have a phone you can 
take with you no matter where you go, have 911 services, etc.


Does anyone know the percentages of different phone services in Taiwan, 
Japan, or otherwise? I thought I read somewhere that one of those 
countries was over 75% cell phone.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

There are major LECs using VoIP internally while providing analog 
service to their customers. Therefore, it is quite possible you have 
had conversations over a VoIP network using your POTS lines without 
even knowing it. Further, the percentage likelihood that you will have 
such a phone call in the future is increasing steadily.


VoIP is a disruptive technology that will forever change the landscape 
of telecom. In a short number of years, VoIP will be more heavily used 
than POTS by consumers. In fact, many people speculate that the RBOCs 
have projections that tell them when to switch from POTS to Voice over 
DSL from a revenue/expense standpoint. They are ready to do it now.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:

You may have the very best VoIP system with the least latency, 
highest call quality, etc but it still is not the same as a POTS 
line.


The real test is when you call someone from a VoIP line to a cell 
phone... that's when you get echo, delay and noise to the point that 
you end up talking over each other, etc. I have been on the cell 
phone end of MANY calls like this, from MANY different companies 
around the US. Every single one of them was using VoIP (from many 
different providers). Having a shared pipe (VoIP) will just never 
be the same as a dedicated pipe (POTS). :)


Granted, VoIP may be good enough for 99% of the people, but 
personally I guess I fall into the 1%. ;)


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:



On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell 
phones  will be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge 
to get  there. Of course, I'm talking residential users... business 
users  are a little different... although we will never switch our  
business lines (12 of them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call  
that sounded as good as a POTS line... :)


Call us then. Or better yet, send us a fax, which is the real test 
of  VoIP quality. VoIP will never be circuit switched, but it is 
good  enough to the point that without testing equipment an end user 
can't  tell the difference. Except of course the reduction in cost 
and the  increase in functionality afforded by VoIP.


-Matt







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

I believe that means that the VOIP line to the customer must be able to dial 
911.
However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they 
intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the providers 
switch, it complies.
So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional offices 
to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give an 
appropriate location for the subscriber to 911.  Is that correct?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - 
Skype,Yahoo, MS)



Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service  for 
911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with  council. 
If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911  compliant as per 
the order. Any other services you may or others may  provide to the 
customer are not considered when testing your specific  service for 
compliance.


-Matt


On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone  systems and 
make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then,  even with a dead 
internet connection, they will still have (albeit  limited) capabilitity 
to get out and receive phone calls, and also  to handle 911.
I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone  system to 
a small business for  around $2500, phones included.   There was a 
considerable amount of profit margin in that amount,  and it beat the 
nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer  picked up my 1meg 
Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying  $50/month for 3000 
minutes of long distance and a toll free line.   I also get at least $35 
every time they need a change made to their  phone service (new phones, 
reconfiguration, etc).Because the  911 and local dial tone is all on 
the POTS lines, you clevely  sidestep that risk.  This beats the heck out 
of trying to do the  outsourced PBX service, because they have hardware 
onsite and  flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, 
including  land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some  will 
try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily)  about VoIP, 
especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170% 
5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html)


Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners  mess, I 
stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know  what the 
Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is  difficult. When you 
take over the dial-tone of a business, you  better make sure that you 
have 5 Nines of reliability with  redundancy built-in, because if the 
phones are working, they are  losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making  any 
money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in  income. MSOs 
are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the  network, charge a 
higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate  the 911 issue. The top 
7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have  25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you  have to 
consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but  these 
same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At  a 15% take 
rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and  using Asterisk and 
a CLEC PRI in a small region could be  profitable, before scale, growth, 
and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but  not 
the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard  that 
song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the  few out 
that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc.  good for 
you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be  made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend  for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip  continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe

Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, 
they intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the 
providers switch, it complies.


That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?

So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional 
offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would 
give an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911.  Is that correct?


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will 
not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are 
so cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by 
moving to voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per 
month on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Horsecrap.  All I am selling is the phone system. 


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Matt Liotta wrote:
Anyone who thinks that providing a POTS line along with VoIP service 
for 911 compliance either has read the order and/or has checked with 
council. If you provide any VoIP service your VOIP must be 911 
compliant as per the order. Any other services you may or others may 
provide to the customer are not considered when testing your specific 
service for compliance.


-Matt


On Jun 19, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems 
and make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then, even with 
a dead internet connection, they will still have (albeit limited) 
capabilitity to get out and receive phone calls, and also to handle 911.
I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone system 
to a small business for  around $2500, phones included.  There was a 
considerable amount of profit margin in that amount, and it beat the 
nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer picked up my 1meg 
Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying $50/month for 3000 
minutes of long distance and a toll free line.  I also get at least 
$35 every time they need a change made to their phone service (new 
phones, reconfiguration, etc).Because the 911 and local dial tone 
is all on the POTS lines, you clevely sidestep that risk.  This beats 
the heck out of trying to do the outsourced PBX service, because 
they have hardware onsite and flexibility to go with multiple 
providers for dial tone, including land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will 
try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about 
VoIP, especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) 



Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, 
I stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the 
Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When 
you take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that 
you have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if 
the phones are working, they are losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making 
any money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. 
MSOs are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, 
charge a higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 
issue. The top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have 
to consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these 
same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% 
take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using 
Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, 
before scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but 
not the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard 
that song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few 
out that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good 
for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread tonylist
Marlon

We are looking at this now for Demarc and I can tell you the cost is less
vs. pots if setup correctly . We have 5 standard pots lines coming in now at
a basic cost of $220 after you add in all the taxes and fees. The we pay
about $40 a month for long anywhere, any time, unlimited distance with a
total of $260 a month.

This same setup on VOIP would be $70-$100 a month with 4 incoming lines and
one main DID including LD. We are looking at doing something in the middle
where we would go to 2 POTS and the rest VOIP so have redundancy in the
system.

Now I would say that this only works on a multi-line system for small
business, customers that only have 1-2 lines would not see much is any
savings. But as you add more lines you start seeing a major difference.

Tony

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

The clear trend where we're at is cell phone and/or voip.

Mostly, it's cell phone and no land line.  What for?  I've got my phone, she
has hers, the kids each have one etc.  Who needs a land line, portable phone
or otherwise

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to
voip.

And lets not forget chat eh?  Many of the new business people/leaders out
there are used to using chat instead of talking on the phone.  I don't know
about you guys, but I remember spending hours some days on the phone with my
friends as a teenager.  Now my son chats.  I also use chat a lot during the
day.  He'll use it far more.

How many of you are trying to teach your corporate customers to use chat
instead of picking up the phone all of the time?  I think that all I really
need is my own chat server that I can assure them of privacy and no stupid
bells and whistles and I could make more money offering a private chat
system than voip!  And I could greatly increase my customer's efficiency. 
No need for small talk when you are on chat all day like there is with each
phone call.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


A lot can change in a year especially with a mass-market disruptive 
technology like VoIP. In just the last 3 months of 2005 900,000 new VoIP 
subs were added. Earlier this year the total household VoIP market was 
thought to be 4.5 million subs, but is expected to be 7.9 million by years 
end. Most of this increase is to due to the cable companies, which now 
exceed 50% market share. Interestingly, cable companies have access to 9% 
of all households and 7% percent of RBOC households. Couple this with RBOCs

currently losing ~5% of their POTS lines each year and the picture gets 
pretty clear.

 Worldwide things are quite a bit different where 40% of all minutes 
 passing through class 5 switches are at some point handled as VoIP.

 -Matt

 Travis Johnson wrote:

 Hi,

 I will have to find the article I read about a year ago regarding VoIP 
 and POTS and cellular. It shows that even with the number of people that 
 are switching, it is still VERY small when compared with the number that 
 still have POTS and will continue to keep their land lines.

 In our area, the big switch is not to VoIP but rather to cell phones. 
 There are many products on the market now that allow you to plug a cell 
 phone into your normal phone wiring in the home and then port your number

 to the cell phone. Thus, you save money, have a phone you can take with 
 you no matter where you go, have 911 services, etc.

 Does anyone know the percentages of different phone services in Taiwan, 
 Japan, or otherwise? I thought I read somewhere that one of those 
 countries was over 75% cell phone.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Liotta wrote:

 There are major LECs using VoIP internally while providing analog 
 service to their customers. Therefore, it is quite possible you have had

 conversations over a VoIP network using your POTS lines without even 
 knowing it. Further, the percentage likelihood that you will have such a

 phone call in the future is increasing steadily.

 VoIP is a disruptive technology that will forever change the landscape 
 of telecom. In a short number of years, VoIP will be more heavily used 
 than POTS by consumers. In fact, many people speculate that the RBOCs 
 have projections that tell them when to switch from POTS to Voice over 
 DSL

Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.
I would almost buy this statement if it weren't for the fact that cell 
phone call quality is horrible.
Add bluetooth headsets to the equation and windshear and I can't hear a 
blessed word some people are saying.

And this has not stopped people from using cell phones.

Consumers switch to VoIP for 3 reasons: cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.

Regards,

Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

The problem that people make is they try to measure (put a rating on) 
the call quality of a call, which is wrong.
The correct way to measure VOIP quality is to measure the percentage 
of calls that can accomplish a defined level of quality.
The quality varies based on where it is made to. And provider have no 
way to test to all possible destinations.


The advantage of telcos is that they can guarantee quality to more 
locations predictably.
When I get a good VOIP link, it often is much better quality than my 
POTS line (analog versus digital), its just not all VOIP calls meet 
that quality.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

I agree.

I didn't say consumers demanded better quality.
I jsut said that when people are discussing quality of VOIP, they use the 
wrong criteria.


I can also argue that its not ALL about price. And the reason is people 
don;t seem to have any problem paying their cell phone bill that on average 
historically is much higher than their POTS phone bill.   Its not uncommon 
for people to get unexpected $300 cell phone bills, and they pay it without 
a fuss.

So I'd argue mobility has a higher value than price or quality to most.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


I would almost buy this statement if it weren't for the fact that cell 
phone call quality is horrible.
Add bluetooth headsets to the equation and windshear and I can't hear a 
blessed word some people are saying.

And this has not stopped people from using cell phones.

Consumers switch to VoIP for 3 reasons: cheaper, cheaper, cheaper.

Regards,

Peter


Tom DeReggi wrote:

The problem that people make is they try to measure (put a rating on) the 
call quality of a call, which is wrong.
The correct way to measure VOIP quality is to measure the percentage of 
calls that can accomplish a defined level of quality.
The quality varies based on where it is made to. And provider have no way 
to test to all possible destinations.


The advantage of telcos is that they can guarantee quality to more 
locations predictably.
When I get a good VOIP link, it often is much better quality than my POTS 
line (analog versus digital), its just not all VOIP calls meet that 
quality.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?


listening to others' conversations, but I am not knowledgeable on the 
subject yet, and I take your word for it.


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will 
not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.


Understand I am not a phone guy, and just learning Asterix.
This is what I don't understand.
If I provision my customers to my switch I know my customer's source phone 
numbers.
Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move this 
call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx 
appropriaite for the region where that customer resides. I match this up a 
tthe time I initially provision the customer.  Then I have multiple POTs 
lines A,B,C with each of the unique area code/phone yyy-yyy of the unique 
regions that we serve.  When customer 2 in region B makes a call, my script 
says if call comes from customer B and destination =911 switch to source 
POTS line B. Again programmed into our switch at time of provisioning based 
on the customer's address or typcial phone number for their area.  Whay 
can't that happen? Why wouldn't that comply?
Is it that there is not enough 911 lines to match the number of potential 
callers? Or is it that that type of scripting is not possible based on 
designs of Asterix and PBXes.  OR is it that you are saying that its not 
possible to get a variety of custom unique numbers yyy-yyy to a single 
location? Would it jsut mean that you need to have a switch in each region 
yyy-yyy?  Isn't that how my Cell site is already designed? I have a cell 
site every 5 miles radius apart. I see no problem in putting a Asterix 
switch and a few 911 capable pots line at each cell site location, and 
terminate calls at the first hop. I may redirect/transport calls using VOIP 
to a remote gateway after I check that the destination is NOT a 911 call. 
But as long as teh checking happens at the first hop (within 5 miles) why 
would it not work. This could be a problem for people that buy into Broadcom 
and have to buy a $30,000-$100,000 switch software, or name brand MetaSwitch 
($150,000 hardware), but not a problem for the Asterix VOIP provider with a 
hard cost of under $1000 per gateway plus POTs line costs.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)




Tom DeReggi wrote:

However, I believe it is allowed, that if at the provider's switch, they 
intercept 911 calls, and redirect to a pots line connected to the 
providers switch, it complies.


That is incorrect. What gives you that impression?

So if you ahve a local regional switch and terminate local regional 
offices to that switch, the Pots line at the providers switch would give 
an appropriate location for the subscriber to 911.  Is that correct?


That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI 
information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will 
not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, 
move this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone 
xxx-xxx appropriaite for the region where that customer resides.


Stop right there. The LEC providing that POTS line will send the phone 
number of the POTS line and the address where they delivered it to the 
PSAP. The phone number and address assigned to that POTS line will not 
match your customer's. The only way to make it match is to have the POTS 
line delivered to the customer premise. Even if you are willing to do 
that you still won't comply since the POTS line has nothing to do with 
your VoIP service.


The bottom line is that the only way to comply is to have a connection 
to every PSAP or selective router serving your customers and the ability 
to make changes to the address database. The only way to have that is to 
be a CLEC, buy E911 service, or buy VoIP termination service that 
includes E911.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 to 
$2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be 
paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so 
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to 
voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month 
on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Peter R.

VZ Local/LD single Resi POTS line in Tampa, FL is $78 total bill.
My CallVantage line is $41.

Rich Comroe wrote:

It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 
to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have 
to be paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Wow... my Qwest bill with Caller-ID, Caller Blocking, etc. is $38 per 
month total (including all taxes, surcharges, etc.).


Travis
Microserv

Peter R. wrote:


VZ Local/LD single Resi POTS line in Tampa, FL is $78 total bill.
My CallVantage line is $41.

Rich Comroe wrote:

It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US 
long distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To 
save $100 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean 
they'd have to be paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay 
federal assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that 
(which will ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same 
monthly.  I'm not seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are 
ordinary residential customers paying $100 or more on typical long 
distance? (and I'd argue typical long distance is within US).  Is 
$60/mo unmetered local  long distance not available?


Rich




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering -Skype, Yahoo, MS)

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

Thanks Matt.
That clears up my confusion.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service 
offering -Skype,Yahoo, MS)




Tom DeReggi wrote:

Why can't I write a script in Linux/Asterix that says, if Source phone 
number equals my client, and destiantion phone number equalls 911, move 
this call to POTS Line A, a POTS line with an area code/phone xxx-xxx 
appropriaite for the region where that customer resides.


Stop right there. The LEC providing that POTS line will send the phone 
number of the POTS line and the address where they delivered it to the 
PSAP. The phone number and address assigned to that POTS line will not 
match your customer's. The only way to make it match is to have the POTS 
line delivered to the customer premise. Even if you are willing to do that 
you still won't comply since the POTS line has nothing to do with your 
VoIP service.


The bottom line is that the only way to comply is to have a connection to 
every PSAP or selective router serving your customers and the ability to 
make changes to the address database. The only way to have that is to be a 
CLEC, buy E911 service, or buy VoIP termination service that includes 
E911.


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
I have $9 a month unmetered long distance, and $30 unmetered Europe long 
distance.  But some how I managed to get a $2000 long distance bill, that is 
now in dispute, and ended up in our home phone lines (long distance and 
local lines) being disconnected by Verizon. Good thing I was not using 
Verizon unmetered long distance for my Business, or I would have had to pay 
the $2000 worth of Verizon Fraudulently charged charges.  VOIP has it 
benefits. It keeps the the world honest. If it were not for VOIP, I would 
not have the abilty to have a home phone now.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 to 
$2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be 
paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so 
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to 
voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month 
on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
Businesses with multiple lines and many employees are not able to buy  
unmetered service.


-Matt

On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:

It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US  
long distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To  
save $100 to $2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean  
they'd have to be paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay  
federal assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that  
(which will ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same  
monthly.  I'm not seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are  
ordinary residential customers paying $100 or more on typical long  
distance? (and I'd argue typical long distance is within US).  Is  
$60/mo unmetered local  long distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates  
are so cheap that some of them would actually increase their  
costs by moving to voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000  
per month on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

2006-06-19 Thread Peter R.

Pat,

VoIP is going to be a steady stream of anywhere from 30k to 100k 
depending on codec, equipment and handshake. (Think of it like the way 
modem's work ... you don't get 56k, you get what is negotiated. Hosted 
PBX or IP Centrex offerings tend to eat up more bandwidth. Can your 
network handle that? Can it handle people checking voicemail across your 
network - or do you want to sell PBX systems to allow VM and Music on 
Hold locally?


Are you going to do it yourself and become a VoIP provider or use a 
turn-key solution?

Lots of the 1200 VoIP Providers are smoke and mirrors, so be careful.
DIY isn't a picnic either since Voice is NOT data. People can put up 
with no email for a little while, but not having dial-tone won't float.


I have a couple of articles for the DIY-er:
http://www.rad-info.net/voip/2.htm
http://www.rad-info.net/voip/diy.htm

This discussion might get more feedback on WISPA's VOIP list 
(http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/voip).


Vonage got hit with 2 patent suits from VZ today 
(http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2006/06/vonage-hit-by-verizon-patent-lawsuit.html)

It seems everyone offering VoIP is trampling a patent.

Those are just a few thoughts this morning. If you want to offer VoIP, I 
would be happy to help you put the proper solution in place for your 
situation, whether that is a turn-key solution or a DIY.


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.
(813) 963-5884


Patrick Shoemaker wrote:

With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines 
to support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on 
VoIP as a service offering.  First, a little introduction.  I'm in the 
planning stages of an ISP.  I intend to target small/medium businesses 
(no residential) in an area that is served with other technologies 
(DSL).  I am currently working part time doing IT for a group of small 
businesses, and was just about sold on a WISP last year that offered a 
voice/data plan as a package that would have saved money.  We ended up 
not switching after reading about some of the pending lawsuits against 
the service provider!


What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services 
to my customers.  My main selling points on my Internet services will 
be reliability, service, and flexibility.  And yes, I do intend to 
back these up.  In the small business sector, it will be much easier 
to sell a highly reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's 
providing more than just access for lunchtime web browsing.  
Integrating voice and data will both save the customer money and 
justify the cost of the dedicated Internet line.


So, how are the service providers out there doing it now?  Acting as a 
reseller for a larger VoIP provider?  Do you offer customers any 
PBX-like features or just dial access?  Looking for suggestions, 
things to avoid, and a little experience here.  Thanks!


Patrick




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

2006-06-19 Thread Larry Yunker
Before you talk about VoIP technology/deployment issues, you might want to 
address your deployment amechanism.  What technology are you planning to use 
in order to deploy your broadband?  Wireless, I would assume?  If so, what 
hardware?  Choosing the right type of hardware on the last-mile is critical 
to making VoIP work.


After you decide on a robust wireless system, you can choose among many VoIP 
solutions.  VoIP can range from simple POTS-Like services (dial-tone, 
caller-id, call-waiting) to full PBX key-system like services with 
conference-calling, automated attendant, intra-office transfer, etc.  You 
can even decide how much of the system you want to maintain versus how much 
you want to outsource.  With certain open source VoIP solutions available, 
you can build your own VoIP server or at the other extreme, you can simply 
purchase VoIP SIP-compliant phones or ATA's and use a completely outsourced 
gateway.  You should probably consider where you want to be the VAR and 
where you simply want to be a reseller.  Is the primary value of your 
service going to be broadband-access or voice-services?


Larry Yunker
Wireless Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering


With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines to 
support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on VoIP as 
a service offering.  First, a little introduction.  I'm in the planning 
stages of an ISP.  I intend to target small/medium businesses (no 
residential) in an area that is served with other technologies (DSL).  I 
am currently working part time doing IT for a group of small businesses, 
and was just about sold on a WISP last year that offered a voice/data plan 
as a package that would have saved money.  We ended up not switching after 
reading about some of the pending lawsuits against the service provider!


What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services to 
my customers.  My main selling points on my Internet services will be 
reliability, service, and flexibility.  And yes, I do intend to back these 
up.  In the small business sector, it will be much easier to sell a highly 
reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's providing more than 
just access for lunchtime web browsing.  Integrating voice and data will 
both save the customer money and justify the cost of the dedicated 
Internet line.


So, how are the service providers out there doing it now?  Acting as a 
reseller for a larger VoIP provider?  Do you offer customers any PBX-like 
features or just dial access?  Looking for suggestions, things to avoid, 
and a little experience here.  Thanks!


Patrick
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

2006-06-19 Thread Matt Liotta
Larry did a good job of laying out some of the considerations, but be 
aware that none of these choices exist in a vacuum. For example, if you 
do voice over internet your upstream is going to be a major concern in 
terms of both capacity and latency. Compare this with running your own 
voice switch with a dedicated voice upstream where your internet 
upstream has nothing to do with your voice upstream.


We maintain redundant diverse connections to the PSTN, which you never 
even consider until all your customers lose their voice when your 
upstream has a problem. If you think running redundant diverse internet 
connections is complex, try the same thing with voice.


-Matt

Larry Yunker wrote:

Before you talk about VoIP technology/deployment issues, you might 
want to address your deployment amechanism.  What technology are you 
planning to use in order to deploy your broadband?  Wireless, I would 
assume?  If so, what hardware?  Choosing the right type of hardware on 
the last-mile is critical to making VoIP work.


After you decide on a robust wireless system, you can choose among 
many VoIP solutions.  VoIP can range from simple POTS-Like services 
(dial-tone, caller-id, call-waiting) to full PBX key-system like 
services with conference-calling, automated attendant, intra-office 
transfer, etc.  You can even decide how much of the system you want to 
maintain versus how much you want to outsource.  With certain open 
source VoIP solutions available, you can build your own VoIP server or 
at the other extreme, you can simply purchase VoIP SIP-compliant 
phones or ATA's and use a completely outsourced gateway.  You should 
probably consider where you want to be the VAR and where you simply 
want to be a reseller.  Is the primary value of your service going 
to be broadband-access or voice-services?


Larry Yunker
Wireless Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering


With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines 
to support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on 
VoIP as a service offering.  First, a little introduction.  I'm in 
the planning stages of an ISP.  I intend to target small/medium 
businesses (no residential) in an area that is served with other 
technologies (DSL).  I am currently working part time doing IT for a 
group of small businesses, and was just about sold on a WISP last 
year that offered a voice/data plan as a package that would have 
saved money.  We ended up not switching after reading about some of 
the pending lawsuits against the service provider!


What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services 
to my customers.  My main selling points on my Internet services will 
be reliability, service, and flexibility.  And yes, I do intend to 
back these up.  In the small business sector, it will be much easier 
to sell a highly reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's 
providing more than just access for lunchtime web browsing.  
Integrating voice and data will both save the customer money and 
justify the cost of the dedicated Internet line.


So, how are the service providers out there doing it now?  Acting as 
a reseller for a larger VoIP provider?  Do you offer customers any 
PBX-like features or just dial access?  Looking for suggestions, 
things to avoid, and a little experience here.  Thanks!


Patrick
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

2006-06-19 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider.  Not 
in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not the 
voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard that song 
and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few out that with just 
the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made over the 
years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL and cable 
companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering


With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines to 
support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on VoIP as 
a service offering.  First, a little introduction.  I'm in the planning 
stages of an ISP.  I intend to target small/medium businesses (no 
residential) in an area that is served with other technologies (DSL).  I 
am currently working part time doing IT for a group of small businesses, 
and was just about sold on a WISP last year that offered a voice/data plan 
as a package that would have saved money.  We ended up not switching after 
reading about some of the pending lawsuits against the service provider!


What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services to 
my customers.  My main selling points on my Internet services will be 
reliability, service, and flexibility.  And yes, I do intend to back these 
up.  In the small business sector, it will be much easier to sell a highly 
reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's providing more than 
just access for lunchtime web browsing.  Integrating voice and data will 
both save the customer money and justify the cost of the dedicated 
Internet line.


So, how are the service providers out there doing it now?  Acting as a 
reseller for a larger VoIP provider?  Do you offer customers any PBX-like 
features or just dial access?  Looking for suggestions, things to avoid, 
and a little experience here.  Thanks!


Patrick
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

2006-06-19 Thread cw
VoIP is going to be a steady stream of anywhere from 30k to 100k 
depending on codec, equipment and handshake.


Lets not forget that 30k packet is a 28k header with a 2k payload. Make sure 
your infrastructure can handle 20,000 packets per second.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-19 Thread Peter R.

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will try 
that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, 
especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.

(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html)

Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I 
stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the Wizard 
of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you take 
over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you have 5 
Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the phones are 
working, they are losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any 
money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs 
are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a 
higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The top 
7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to 
consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these same 
companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% take rate, 
that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using Asterisk and a CLEC 
PRI in a small region could be profitable, before scale, growth, and 
scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not 
the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard that 
song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few out 
that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering

2006-06-19 Thread Patrick Shoemaker

A little more information on my situation:

I'm considering VoIP only as a selling point.  I don't expect to make 
much money on the voice service alone.  I intend to use it to be able to 
up-sell the Internet connection, since many small businesses don't place 
much value on their Internet connection. 

I have been planning the costs of my network so far using Motorola 
Canopy at the network edge.  With only 20-30 VoIP calls per sector 
supported on a good day, this wouldn't be the best platform if I were 
offering voice services.  The alternative I've been looking at is 
Alvarion's BreezeAccess line, with the VL's new software version being 
able to support 40k packets per second if I remember correctly.  
Obviously there's a big price difference between these vendors.  I won't 
be able to start offering service until June 07, so I've got some time 
to watch equipment vendors come out with new offerings. 

Anyone out there have a similar business model?  Do you do your VoIP 
in-house or resell another provider's service?


Patrick

Larry Yunker wrote:
Before you talk about VoIP technology/deployment issues, you might 
want to address your deployment amechanism.  What technology are you 
planning to use in order to deploy your broadband?  Wireless, I would 
assume?  If so, what hardware?  Choosing the right type of hardware on 
the last-mile is critical to making VoIP work.


After you decide on a robust wireless system, you can choose among 
many VoIP solutions.  VoIP can range from simple POTS-Like services 
(dial-tone, caller-id, call-waiting) to full PBX key-system like 
services with conference-calling, automated attendant, intra-office 
transfer, etc.  You can even decide how much of the system you want to 
maintain versus how much you want to outsource.  With certain open 
source VoIP solutions available, you can build your own VoIP server or 
at the other extreme, you can simply purchase VoIP SIP-compliant 
phones or ATA's and use a completely outsourced gateway.  You should 
probably consider where you want to be the VAR and where you simply 
want to be a reseller.  Is the primary value of your service going 
to be broadband-access or voice-services?


Larry Yunker
Wireless Network Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering


With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines 
to support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on 
VoIP as a service offering.  First, a little introduction.  I'm in 
the planning stages of an ISP.  I intend to target small/medium 
businesses (no residential) in an area that is served with other 
technologies (DSL).  I am currently working part time doing IT for a 
group of small businesses, and was just about sold on a WISP last 
year that offered a voice/data plan as a package that would have 
saved money.  We ended up not switching after reading about some of 
the pending lawsuits against the service provider!


What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services 
to my customers.  My main selling points on my Internet services will 
be reliability, service, and flexibility.  And yes, I do intend to 
back these up.  In the small business sector, it will be much easier 
to sell a highly reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's 
providing more than just access for lunchtime web browsing.  
Integrating voice and data will both save the customer money and 
justify the cost of the dedicated Internet line.


So, how are the service providers out there doing it now?  Acting as 
a reseller for a larger VoIP provider?  Do you offer customers any 
PBX-like features or just dial access?  Looking for suggestions, 
things to avoid, and a little experience here.  Thanks!


Patrick
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-19 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
One way to cherry pick on VOIP is to specialize in the phone systems and 
make sure that they keep at least one POTS line.  Then, even with a dead 
internet connection, they will still have (albeit limited) capabilitity 
to get out and receive phone calls, and also to handle 911.  

I recently sold an 11 extension, four POTS line Asterisk phone system to 
a small business for  around $2500, phones included.  There was a 
considerable amount of profit margin in that amount, and it beat the 
nearest local competitor by $3000.  The customer picked up my 1meg 
Internet service for $49.95 a month and is paying $50/month for 3000 
minutes of long distance and a toll free line.  I also get at least $35 
every time they need a change made to their phone service (new phones, 
reconfiguration, etc).Because the 911 and local dial tone is all on 
the POTS lines, you clevely sidestep that risk.  This beats the heck out 
of trying to do the outsourced PBX service, because they have hardware 
onsite and flexibility to go with multiple providers for dial tone, 
including land line ones.


Just another way to look at the picture.

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter R. wrote:

Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will 
try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, 
especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) 



Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I 
stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the 
Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you 
take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you 
have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the 
phones are working, they are losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any 
money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs 
are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a 
higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The 
top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to 
consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these 
same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% 
take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using 
Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, before 
scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider.  Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not 
the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard that 
song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few out 
that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. 
Not in the long term.


Yes, but there may be no money in wireless connectivity either, if you loose 
all your subs to competitiors that offered voice, because consumers want 
VOIP.
Or at least they think they do.  Once they figure out VOIP may not be all 
they imagined, you already lost them, and they likely won't want to waste 
their time switching back with out adequate reason.  I'd argue its worth 
selling VOIP, even if jsut at a breakeven, just so all the otehr VOIP 
cusotmers won;t constantly blaim your wireless network for the cause of 
their low VOIP quality, and cause bad will.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will try 
that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, 
especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.

(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html)

Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I 
stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the Wizard 
of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you take over 
the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you have 5 Nines of 
reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, 
they are losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any 
money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs are 
probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a higher 
rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs 
now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to 
consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these same 
companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% take rate, 
that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using Asterisk and a CLEC 
PRI in a small region could be profitable, before scale, growth, and scope 
start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. 
Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not the 
voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard that song 
and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few out that with 
just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made over 
the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL and cable 
companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-19 Thread Travis Johnson
I think the problem is most WISP's don't realize the extra support costs 
for VoIP. More support calls, longer troubleshooting time, etc... so 
really they are loosing money.


I don't believe there is any real money in it either... cell phones will 
be the choice 5-10 years from now. VoIP is the bridge to get there. Of 
course, I'm talking residential users... business users are a little 
different... although we will never switch our business lines (12 of 
them) to VoIP. I've never heard a VoIP call that sounded as good as a 
POTS line... :)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider. Not in the long term.



Yes, but there may be no money in wireless connectivity either, if you 
loose all your subs to competitiors that offered voice, because 
consumers want VOIP.
Or at least they think they do.  Once they figure out VOIP may not be 
all they imagined, you already lost them, and they likely won't want 
to waste their time switching back with out adequate reason.  I'd 
argue its worth selling VOIP, even if jsut at a breakeven, just so all 
the otehr VOIP cusotmers won;t constantly blaim your wireless network 
for the cause of their low VOIP quality, and cause bad will.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



Marlon,

He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will 
try that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, 
especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.
(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5E24169,00.html) 



Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I 
stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the 
Wizard of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When 
you take over the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that 
you have 5 Nines of reliability with redundancy built-in, because if 
the phones are working, they are losing customers.


And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any 
money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs 
are probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a 
higher rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The 
top 7 MSOs now have 10M VoIP users.


When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to 
consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.


Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these 
same companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% 
take rate, that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using 
Asterisk and a CLEC PRI in a small region could be profitable, before 
scale, growth, and scope start to weigh you down.


Regards,

Peter


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service 
provider. Not in the long term.


The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not 
the voip it's self.


Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard that 
song and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few out 
that with just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you.


For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made 
over the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL 
and cable companies to mess up other people's voip continues.


Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

Marlon



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-19 Thread Jonathan Schmidt
Tom,
I've been happy with my Lingo for 2 years...$19.95 a month and free calling
to Europe, too...which I do.  I ported both my SBC (ATT) numbers.  I
thought great service, cheap calling, decent quality, super features...


I convinced my brother in New York to convert.  He's been struck by
lightening twice in a year and it has taken weeks...yes weeks to convince
the Lingo support personnel that we know that, when the link light no longer
is active, that the box is broken.  Both times...

Support might be the killer.

You may be right on the dime.

. . . 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

 I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. 
 Not in the long term.

Yes, but there may be no money in wireless connectivity either, if you loose

all your subs to competitiors that offered voice, because consumers want 
VOIP.
Or at least they think they do.  Once they figure out VOIP may not be all 
they imagined, you already lost them, and they likely won't want to waste 
their time switching back with out adequate reason.  I'd argue its worth 
selling VOIP, even if jsut at a breakeven, just so all the otehr VOIP 
cusotmers won;t constantly blaim your wireless network for the cause of 
their low VOIP quality, and cause bad will.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS


 Marlon,

 He did say he was selling to SMB, not Resi.
 Very few small businesses are going to use Yahoo, AIM, or MS as a 
 dial-tone replacement. Skype is free within the US now, so some will try 
 that, but there are security concerns (growing daily) about VoIP, 
 especially with the mandatory CALEA compliance.

(http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,19495174%5E24170%5E%5Enbv%5
E24169,00.html)

 Weekly, ISPs come to me to offer VoIP. After the CommPartners mess, I 
 stopped referring clients to anyone. You just don't know what the Wizard 
 of Oz is really doing. Doing it yourself is difficult. When you take over 
 the dial-tone of a business, you better make sure that you have 5 Nines of

 reliability with redundancy built-in, because if the phones are working, 
 they are losing customers.

 And, Marlon, you are correct - most VoIP Providers are NOT making any 
 money. 4Q05 delta3 did $9.1M in revenue and kept $25k in income. MSOs are 
 probably making $$ on VoIP because they own the network, charge a higher 
 rate, and have fixed modems that mitigate the 911 issue. The top 7 MSOs 
 now have 10M VoIP users.

 When you consider that many CLECs like USLEC, FDN, ITC only have 25k 
 customers and can barely eek out a living using wireline, you have to 
 consider that VoIP may be difficult to profit on, too.

 Many will tell me that they are killing it - profitably - but these same 
 companies have less than 1000 broadband subscribers. At a 15% take rate, 
 that is 150 VoIP users. That is manageble and using Asterisk and a CLEC 
 PRI in a small region could be profitable, before scale, growth, and scope

 start to weigh you down.

 Regards,

 Peter


 Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

 I still believe that there's no money in voip for the service provider. 
 Not in the long term.

 The money will be in the ability to offer good voip capacity but not the 
 voip it's self.

 Yeah, I know, there are people making money with voip.  I heard that song

 and dance about hot spots too.  IF you are one of the few out that with 
 just the right model, capabilities, market etc. good for you.

 For the rest of the WISP market, there's far more money to be made over 
 the years offering transport.  Especially if the trend for DSL and cable 
 companies to mess up other people's voip continues.

 Here's the real nail in the coffin of voip:
 http://im.yahoo.com/feat_voice.php;_ylt=AlRactYLuOa7.Wxwqq5epPBwMMIF

 And that's just ONE provider.  More are bound to come.

 Marlon

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/