Newsletter
Google Left Banner
VoIP Patent Infringement Parade Growing
25 Jan, 2008
Is it just me or does it seem like the patent infringement lawsuits are on the tipping point of getting out of control. Sprint is the latest to join the lawsuit parade, filing VoIP patent lawsuits against NuVox Communications, Broadvox Holdings, Big River Telephone Company, and Paetec Communications. They join Verizon who recently sued Cox for VoIP patent infringement. Sprint is suing these latest companies on the same basis as their successful suit against Vonage, which led to an $80 million dollar licensing agreement between the two. All indicators lead to even more suits between large carriers like Verizon and Sprint targeting not only upstarts like NuVox, but also large MSOs like Cox.
Analysts are beginning to wonder whether companies like Sprint see patent suits as a new top line revenue item. These scenarios may lend credence to the argument for patent reform. Should companies view patent infringement lawsuits as a way to earn revenue, or should they be reserved for protecting innovation and business processes? Maybe a little of both is warranted. I for one hope this industry can get past all the patent lawsuits and let the competitive landscape determine the winners and losers. I suspect many more are waiting in the wings. Let’s just get them all on the table so we can move on. The sooner the better.
VoIP Phone Service Provider
This is an excellent article about VOIP. I have been looking for a VoIP Phone Service Provider.
Post new comment
About Telecompetitor
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google

Who benefits
The shame with all of this is that the lawyers are the only ones who make out!