bzmeteorite
join:2006-02-15
Nipomo, CA
1 edit | I can see both sides here...
On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service. If Comcast started to put it's Digital Voice service inline with data (sharing the channel with internet), consumers and regulators would cry out and start lawsuits if their line became "de-prioritized" and they tried calling 911 and as a result of their de-prioritization, their 911 call dropped due to latency or packet loss.
Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Or when people or regulators start crying about the usage of DPI to identify VoIP? Net neutrality?
I just don't see a realistic middle ground without someone getting hurt in some way.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality? |
|
Zero4Quebec
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
hottboiinnc
thumbs down from:
hottboiinnc
| It's real simple folks.....
...if you want a seat in first class, buy a first class ticket.
Otherwise, park your cheap a$$ in the back of the plane with the rest of the riff-raff. |
|
gar187er
Premium Alcoholic
join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE | positive=negative
fact is CDV does not hit the net....thats the main difference as to why its not affected...and the main reason why alot of people like it....
its a no win situation... |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I don't like this at all...
I realize that IP stands for Internet Protocol, but just because it's an IP based service does not mean it should be treated the same way as broadband internet service
This is no different than AT&T offering IP based television services. You can get U-verse TV or Comcast Digital Voice with no broadband service at all, and it still works.
Third party VOIP services like Vonage rely on the public Internet, and that's well known by anyone who purchases Vonage. The Vonage phone service requires broadband service. That means Vonage becomes a "client" of the Comcast HSI service you purchased, and therefore is subject to Comcast HSI's limitations.
Comcast Digital Voice is not a Comcast HSI client. It is a separate product and something that operates on a network outside of the public internet. So you may pay a bit more for CDV vs. Vonage, but you're getting a potentially more robust product.
If the FCC feels the need to force Comcast to open their voice network up to competition (as we have forced cable MSOs to open their data network to other ISPs), so be it, but it has nothing to do with Comcast HSI's network management techniques.
As long as Comcast is not singling out VOIP traffic and intentionally deprioritizing it, they're not doing anything wrong here. If VOIP services are no longer working well on Comcast since the traffic management changeover, that's certainly a problem that needs addressing. But leave CDV out of it.
-- Rob
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to bzmeteorite
Re: I can see both sides here...
said by bzmeteorite :On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel (as I understand from comments from the previous article) may make some inclined (FCC, et al.) to regulate it as a telco service. If Comcast started to put it's Digital Voice service inline with data (sharing the channel with internet), consumers and regulators would cry out and start lawsuits if their line became "de-prioritized" and they tried calling 911 and as a result of their de-prioritization, their 911 call dropped due to latency or packet loss. Of course, they could prioritize all VoIP possible on the data channel, but what happens if a competitor uses a proprietary technology that prevents Comcast from identifying their voice service? Or when people or regulators start crying about the usage of DPI to identify VoIP? Net neutrality? I just don't see a realistic middle ground without someone getting hurt in some way. There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem. |
|
videoOip
@anonymouse.org | Do all the same principals go for the Video over IP priority which is done by FiOS?
If I have my Internet Video app, FiOS must give it equal treatment as their HD ESPN signal? |
|
ronus
join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA
| reply to Zero4Quebec
Re: It's real simple folks.....
You must work for Comcast. Otherwise why would you fear competition for Comcast? On another front, does Comcast count their Video on Demand (VOD) downloads toward their 250 GB bandwith limit? Nooooooooooooo. Do they count the bits used in their Digital Voice (Phone) service towards the 250 GB limit? Noooooooooooo. In my opinion, these are anti-competitive measures meant to horn in on the competition. It looks like they want to make money off the competitions downloads. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to RARPSL
Re: I can see both sides here...
There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service.
Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to RARPSL
And is said 3rd party company going to pay Comcast to use that CDV channel? Then again we'd have people on here calling for Net Neutrality.
You can't please everyone.
But if the Free Press was really Free and could think they'd see and say that the U-Verse and FiOS networks are anti-competitive as it removes the previous ISPs from offering services that were once doing it.
But NOPE! They don't see it that way. |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | reply to bzmeteorite
I am just still upset that the FCC only gets involved if there is something to be lost or gained by AT&T, instead of getting involved for the sake of the citizens, freedom of information and for the SAKE OF THEIR DAM JOB! |
|
bzmeteorite
join:2006-02-15
Nipomo, CA
1 edit | reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service. I know that this might be seen as violating some aspects of Network Neutrality but so long as there is no blackmail fees being extorted from the VoIP Providers and ALL VoIP traffic flows unrestricted over the 2nd channel, I see no real problem. Even such a system would likely require hardware or (maybe) firmware upgrades, probably on the CPE side (mind you, I am no expert of DOCSIS, but that makes practical sense). And how would they absolutely know that it's to a VoIP service? There is always the possibility of an oversight with DPI especially if one VoIP provider a custom proprietary solution, in which case I'm sure some sue-happy consumer or company would take advantage of. Say there was a directory of VoIP services, that could work, but that's more administrative overhead and likely even more chance of someone crying anti-competitive/net neutrality.
I kinda like another poster's idea that since CDV doesn't travel the public net, it shouldn't be expected to be treated the same as VoIP that runs over the public net. Then again we're back to square one when the FCC requires it be regulated as a telco service since it's on a different channel because of their definition.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality? |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
1 edit | reply to ronus
Re: It's real simple folks.....
said by ronus :On another front, does Comcast count their Video on Demand (VOD) downloads toward their 250 GB bandwith limit? Nooooooooooooo. VoD uses completely different frequency space from their HSI data service; they are never in contention.
said by ronus :Do they count the bits used in their Digital Voice (Phone) service towards the 250 GB limit? Noooooooooooo. A 64k G.711 channel will eat approximately 80kbps (with overhead) in each direction of the call. If you made a call and left it nailed up 24x7 for an entire 30 day month, that'd still only amount to 52GB of data. When you break it down to reasonable usage, the amount of data consumed by any VoIP service (CDV or 3rd party) is statistically insignificant with regard to the 250GB cap for all but the most extreme (read: rare) scenarios. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to ronus
We could go back to- Did Comcast build their own network? Yes. Does Comcast support their own network? Yes. Does Hulu/Netflix build their own network? No. Do they piggy back on someone else? Yes. Does Vonage piggy back on someone else? Yes. Okay see all these yeses of course. So we can go back to Ol' Ed's comments and make the Content Providers and others PAY to be on the network.
And like the other person said- why should a Economy ticket get you first class services? you pay for what you get for. You know signing up with Vonage and everyone else that your Internet depends on the Internet provider. It's not Comcast's fault that you took the cheap way out and are wanting the First Class services and products at the Economy priced ticket.
hey Vonage! Go build your own network or start offering your own DSL with Covad in more cities. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to djrobx
Re: I can see both sides here...
said by djrobx :Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles. Exactly. Internet network neutrality means you can't hinder nor help Internet traffic based on protocol, as to prioritize VoIP is to deprioritize other Internet traffic.
The core of the matter is this: CDV is not an Internet-based service. You cannot access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network. |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| Kevin Martin got one thing right
Aside from his favoritism, Kevin Martin grew a conscience on his way out the door with this statement.
»www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-m···91.story
quote:
"There could be a more regulatory environment," he said. "If you come in with too much of an interventionist approach, you could . . . deter people from investing in the infrastructure."
The economic uncertainty facing companies "makes it even more important you don't reimpose an interventionist approach on infrastructure investment."
Which conflicts with the position here around the opposite of convergence (new way) vs. separation of physical infrastructure (old way)
IP and convergence brings many things... this new FCC regulation may have good intentions on the surface, but bad technology underneath.
Be careful of what you wish for... You just may get it |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to djrobx
Re: I don't like this at all...
Time Warner only agreed to open their network as part of the AOL merger. That didnt last very long at all. Comcast offers Earthlink as an ISP in very limited area. Maybe a hand full of cities.
Cox doesnt offer anyone else, Charter doesnt offer anyone else, CableOne doesn't, CableVision doesn't.
You'd have to open those networks up as well to offer the same playing field for voice as well, as well as require FiOS to open, and AT$T as well.
That wouldn't go over very well. Even with the new FCC Chairperson coming in. He will be hated right off the start if he decided to do something like that. And the Obama Admin. is stupid enough to do that.
the so called Free Press and everyone else is going to have to learn if you want a First Class Service/product then you'll pay the price for it. If you want the 3rd party service and the price it comes with then you'll take what comes of it. The same thing applies with brand-name foods over generic. Sometimes there is a difference but we don't see the Gov't making General Mills open up their factories to Malto Meal for the same product but at a cheaper price.
While we're at it opening things up we need to get some ISPs on FiOS and on U-Verse too as those should be open too. And I think I deserve to have Cablevision be my cable provider so Buckeye should be forced to open up their cable lines to them. Even though Buckeye built the company out here. But meh. I want CV. |
|
bzmeteorite
join:2006-02-15
Nipomo, CA
1 edit | reply to djrobx
Re: I can see both sides here...
said by djrobx :There is a simple solution to the 3rd party VoIP situation. When I use such an application, I am connecting with a Server run by the VoIP Provider. Thus Comcast KNOWS that this is a VoIP Session and can serve it over the same channel as they use for THEIR CDV service.
Nope, sorry, that would be treating VOIP differently than other internet traffic, which is against net neutrality principles. There seems to be a lot of definitions of network neutrality. I am of the type that net neutrality is not allowing bribes or holding certain networks hostage or at a degraded speed (yes, you can down mod me... that's just my definition of what appears to be a lot of differing definitions/opinions out there on net neutrality, though mine is probably closer to the original intention of net neutrality). Because of the fact that VoIP and IPTV are extremely latency and packet loss sensitive, I don't have a problem with prioritizing it over data services which are mostly for bulk and do not require even latency or packet loss. As long as everyone's VoIP and IPTV are prioritized evenly (not one provider over another), of course, as I mentioned earlier, I'm sure some may use a proprietary solution which may not get prioritized... inviting more problems.
This makes theory sense otherwise everything would have to be extremely overbuilt, because as peak hour comes around, your (maybe very important 911) call or video may stutter or drop completely (in the case of VoIP) as a link approaches capacity.
--
What happens when you combine common sense and an outspoken personality? |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to devnuller
Re: Kevin Martin got one thing right
Meh. the people on here doesnt see it that way. They wanted a solid cap number from Comcast they got one; 250gigs. but they're still not happy. They wanted a set way to throttled; well they got one; they're still not happy.
But they still use Comcast. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to bzmeteorite
Re: I can see both sides here...
said by bzmeteorite :On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about.
But there seems to be a larger question being asked by the FCC here, and we tech geeks and NN-backers are overlooking it because we're steeped in the technical details. That larger question is Is Comcast a phone company? subject to the regulations that phone companies endure.
Comcast has had it both ways -- generally telling the states (like Missouri, for example) that CDV is a VOIP service not subject to certain state regulations and taxes.
They had to see this coming -- even if it wasn't cuddled in a Net Neutrality question, after being lauded as the "third largest telephone company" by Wired in its new issue (17.02 pg 56).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Re: It's real simple folks.....
said by espaeth :said by ronus :On another front, does Comcast count their Video on Demand (VOD) downloads toward their 250 GB bandwith limit? Nooooooooooooo. VoD uses completely different frequency space from their HSI data service; they are never in contention. True for OnDemand.
FanCast is also VoD and does use -- and count against -- the limits and other management.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
