ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
| The Sky is Falling
quote:
combat potential discriminatory practices
I, for one, would simply change broadband providers if I couldn't get a connection good enough to hold a VoIP phone call. So I'm not sure there is really a problem here -- but it couldn't hurt to proactively address it -- I guess. |
|
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Metrocast Communic..
 ·Vonage
1 edit | umm it's their network
they can do whatever the hell they want 
broadband providers have no obligation to allow a competitor to use their network. besides the fact that they will alienate a mutual customer their is no downside.
when QOS starts to gain more precedence on networks, unaffiliated VOIP using only best effort will just suck compared to prioritized QOS protected VOIP.
i say start making friends nuvio, because you obviously see the writing on the wall.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. |
|
grcore
New and Improved
join:2003-12-06
usa
| reply to ronpin
Re: The Sky is Falling
said by ronpin  :
I, for one, would simply change broadband providers if I couldn't get a connection good enough to hold a VoIP phone call. So I'm not sure there is really a problem here -- but it couldn't hurt to proactively address it -- I guess.
Many areas in the US do not have a a wide selection of broadband providers, and with such a limited selection these providers can leverage their services and possibly limit services of other VOIP providers.
g |
|
hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Yeah right
Of course broadband providers will do this because they want you to use all or nothing. They also want you to send in blank signed checks for the payment too. |
|
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Like the great Justin Timberlake once said
*heh*..
CRY ME A RIVER |
|
hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Rural markets in danger?
In particular, Nuvio is concerned that rural ILECs will use discriminatory practices to artificially keep VoIP competition from reaching rural customers.
Most rural markets have no broadband where is the danger here? |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
1 edit | Regulate or not?
quote:
In the comments, Nuvio asserts that broadband Internet access providers, who also offer VoIP services, have economic incentives to discriminate against unaffiliated VoIP providers in favor of affiliated providers. If left unregulated, this discrimination will endanger the vibrant competition that currently exists in the VoIP market and ultimately harm consumers.
So what do VoIP providers want? Regulation or not? I wish they would just make up their mind on this.
--
I registered on DSLReports/BroadbandReports to talk about Broadband and DSL. Did you see GWReports or JKReports because I sure as hell didn't. Enough with the political bullshitting already.
Free Kevin |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| This is probably going to cause problems.
What happens if the broadband provider implements a QoS feature that they only bundle with their own VoIP? Their network could normally be laggy as hell and VoIP could be impossible. But when you get their VoIP they turn on the QoS for you and VoIP becomes possible. Can the broadband provider restrict an extra feature that is necessary for competition? I would assume that they could, or they could charge a 10 a month fee for it and waive the fee when you use their VoIP service. Of course if the connection normally has low pings, this would become a non issue. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to odog
Re: umm it's their network
I might be wrong, but didn't a lot of these providers get easements from municipalities etc?
--
BlooMe |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| reply to insomniac84
Re: This is probably going to cause problems.
I can just see Nuvio starting a legal battle with providers that don't provide 100% uptime.
This is a problem with almost any company that has no responsibility for equipment between the company and the customer's equipment.
They could blame sub-optimal peering with other ISP's or the port blocking that seems to be popular today.
--
I registered on DSLReports/BroadbandReports to talk about Broadband and DSL. Did you see GWReports or JKReports because I sure as hell didn't. Enough with the political bullshitting already.Free Kevin |
|
Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
 ·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| hey, i guess if they want to be able to guarantee a solid, reliable network they should PAY for that solid reliable network, or build their own
I think it's a pile of crap that they think they can just use the network with no investment and still make a profit |
|
navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | reply to pcscdma
Re: Regulate or not?
they want regulation of the broadband industry... |
|
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Metrocast Communic..
·Vonage
| reply to woody7
Re: umm it's their network
said by woody7 :
I might be wrong, but didn't a lot of these providers get easements from municipalities etc?
yeah, but that has nothing to do with allowing your competition to use your own property to compete with you. remember the customer can choose to not use that provider if their VOIP and broadband don't work together. they can either switch VOIP AND OR broandband providers.
easement doesn't have any relevance is this argument.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. |
|
VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :
I might be wrong, but didn't a lot of these providers get easements from municipalities etc?
Good point. At least with cable providers, depending on the nuances of the contract, the muni could apply heat to the incumbent cable provider if they threaten other network-services companies like un-affiliated VoIP providers, by threatening to revoke their charter. Which, in most cases, would leave the actual physical-plant infrastructure in place, because it would be too costly for the cable co to rip it up again, and the muni could simply deny them the necessarily permits for ripping up the public streets to do so.
Then the muni just needs to add their own necessarily head-end/NOC infrastructure after the incumbent cable co. is gone from the scene. Possibly no cable-tv, but as far as broadband, such a system should be much cheaper, without the cable co's price-gouging. As an added bonus, all of the extra available bandwidth from the unused cable-tv channel freqs could be used to provide much higher-speed internet access than the network supported previously.
The big question in that situation is obviously efficient management and maintenance by the muni, and if they don't have the local skills to do so, how much will it cost them to out-source them. |
|
BBWEST
join:2004-09-05
Port Angeles, WA | reply to hedyd4u
Re: Rural markets in danger?
no sh*t
rural = no broadband |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| reply to insomniac84
Re: This is probably going to cause problems.
You don't just turn on QoS and VoIP gets better. There is some configuration needed. You shouldn't expect ISPs to take the time to figure out what port numbers and IP addresses are in use for VoIP and block them because the VoIP providers can and will notice this and change things, trust me. I assume FTC rules already prohibit this type of practice so it isn't really worth the time to convince another federal agency to write redundant rules.
--
I registered on DSLReports/BroadbandReports to talk about Broadband and DSL. Did you see GWReports or JKReports because I sure as hell didn't. Enough with the political bullshitting already.Free Kevin |
|
hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | But politicians do redundant things all the time. |
|
gothamjoe
join:2002-09-04
New York, NY
| Mixed Feelings
There are really two ideas going on here at once. One (which I think Nuvio is talking about) is that broadband providers could detect VoIP packets and actively degrade those connections relative to standard IP connectivity. The other (which many posters have discussed) is that broadband providers will offer enhanced QoS for their own (or affiliated) VoIP services, while independent services can do no better than best efforts IP traffic.
The former is pretty obviously wrong. This is especially clear for applications that aren't VoIP, like, say, search. Technically speaking, a provider with a relationship with MSN could introduce 30 seconds of delay before delivering packets going to/from Google IP addresses...it's their network...but they really shouldn't. And never will (I don't think). But in the case of VoIP a provider could degrade a service very subtly, making it hard even for a very savvy end user to detect/prove.
But the latter doesn't bother me, and indeed, I think it's inevitable. Cablevision already markets Optimum Voice as being better than other VoIP services, because, in part, it doesn't rely on the public Internet. See: their FAQ.
At a minimum, independent guys like Vonage or Nuvio should reasonably expect speed/latency/packet loss stats for packets delivered to their networks on a par with the average for all other IP traffic from a given provider. But that may not be enough to make them as robust as a provider's own VoIP offering. I think that's just life. |
|
Sumeet
join:2000-12-01
Chantilly, VA
| reply to odog
Re: umm it's their network
Odog,
What you say is not correct.....it's like power company saying that we will only support appliances from XYZ companies. Broadband access is a commodity and when a telco or cable co is dependent upon a muni for access rights...they better make sure that they do not pull a stunt like that. Plus I am against any bid by muni governments to take over the role of an ISP....I am sure there are lots of media/telcos that can replace an incumbent cable co.
just my 2 cents
Regards |
|
version3D
Infidels Won
join:2004-07-24
Deep River, CT | reply to grcore
Re: The Sky is Falling
Yes, but it would also be extremely difficult to prove, if not impossible, that the person's ISP is responsible for degradation of a competing VoIP provider or if it is the VoIP provider itself that is responsible for service degradation. |
|
