how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to highjinx
Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? Well, highjinx, you're committed at least.
I won't attempt to further convince you of the Telcos' long history of anti-competitive behavior--it's well documented and I've summarized the key points above (though to say the SBC home router flap was just a "support" issue is hilarious--they prohibited personal ownership of home routers until they realized they couldn't get by with it.)
And as for antitrust, it applies to all business, and doesn't draw lines at affiliates--so if the net effect of SBC's mumbo-jumbo of sham corporate subsidiaries is that SBC as a whole violates antitrust principles, SBC has a real problem.
Again, my points don't depend on either existing or traditional telco regulation. Both the State legislatures and the US Congress have the ability to legislate restrictions on Internet Service Providers--I'll expect we'll see various forms of legislation proposed, and some of it may pass. Go ahead and force your customers to buy your affiliated VoIP service if you want, but if Congress then comes after you hunting votes you have no one to blame but yourself.
And you are grinning through a piece of double talk--you claim you are only obligated to offer "best efforts" but they you mention a premium service with offers better service. Hey, I've got news for you--"best efforts" means "best efforts", not "best efforts except for those people I put in front of you because they slip me an extra $10." If you offer a premium service, by definition the rest of your services are not "best efforts".
As I've said, I don't claim that each of these possible arguments I've raised will win. I just think that ISP's will have to choose between either 1) treating all VoIP services, including their own, equally or 2) fighting a bunch of these legal/regulatory battles. Take your pick--there are plenty of attorneys out there who can bill you lots and lots to try and protect your ability to favor your own VoIP product. (Have a special time when NY AG Eliot Spitzer and other AGs sue you for misrepresenting your ISP product and favoring your VoIP product.)
But hey, don't believe me. Lawyers love clients who get in trouble first and then call because the ultimate billings are so much higher.
Finally, you said:
"They understand that the revenue isn't in the application, it's in the access. "
I agree. SBC is again trying to monopolize associated markets based on their dominant position in access, and they will have mixed successes on the legal/regulatory front. What will be different this time is that there are other wires (and wireless frequencies) to the customer, so by the time they get done arguing that they have the ability to screw their competitor, but business will have passed them by.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
 odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
1 edit | calvoiper  think you and highjinx should just duke it out, he's far more prepared to defend himself 
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to calvoiper
quote:
Forecast: 15 million-plus cable VoIP subs by '09
Jeff Baumgartner, CED
U.S. and Canadian MSOs will have more than 15 million IP telephony subs and capture more than $15 billion in revenue from incumbent telcos over the next five years, predicts Kinetic Strategies Inc., in a new study.
That, in turn, will create a market opportunity exceeding $3 billion for VoIP vendors, the research firm added.
Kinetic Strategies also predicted that North American MSOs will add more VoIP subs than high-speed data customers during that span.
"After years of false starts, North American cable operators are finally poised to capture a meaningful share of the local and long distance telephone services market by leveraging IP technology," said Kinetic Strategies President and Principal Analyst Michael Harris, in a release. "Cable operators already serve more than 2.5 million local telephone customers in North America using legacy circuit-switched technology. The industry's move to IP will reduce deployment costs while spurring application innovation."
Although best-effort, SIP-based services from companies such Vonage, AT&T and Verizon can work over any broadband connection, Kinetic notes that their quality and reliability "are often flimsy" when compared to the QoS-capable VoIP services cable operators can offer via managed PacketCable networks that sidestep the public Internet.
just read this. i thought it had some bearing, judge for yourself.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
| reply to odog
said by odog:
calvoiper think you and highjinx should just duke it out, he's far more prepared to defend himself
Easy there fella. It's not my money they're fighting over.
HJ | |
| reply to calvoiper
I hate analogies
said by calvoiper:
A lot...
Committable...is more like it. Forgive me as it's been a long week and don't feel like HTML...
Over time, sure (how long they been around?) I don't doubt there's an inkling of truth to your claims. I just know there's usually two sides to every story with the truth meeting somewhere in the middle. You (always) just keep pointing at SBC as the culprits. This story was about rural ILECs.
SBC having all its subsidiaries isn't their creation. It was mandated this way. Besides, if you understood how it worked, you'd know it is more like a CLEC to CLEC relationship within subsidiaries than a couple of buddies trying to "put one over" on everyone.
I'm sorry. Who's regulating the internet? I missed that one. What's that groups name? Also, who's implying that anyone is forcing anyone to do anything?
I don't believe it's double talk. If I offer a service, there is usually a cost associated. I can either eat it or pass it on. Here's a simple one: I run a business selling perishables. The product I sell is available locally or online. I have many, many competitors all around the globe. The product I sell requires a two day delivery or it will perish (imagine that) and be useless to my customer. Now, just because my product is perishable, should I expect UPS (arbitrary) to ship my product over night, next day or two day air at the cost of Ground Rates?? Additionally, should my customer who paid my business me for the product assume that UPS will ship the package over night, next day or two day air at the cost of Ground Rates??? The truth is, UPS doesn't care WTF is in the package, they don't look inside the package, they just want to get it to its destination at correct delivery rate and time you paid for. They're operating a business too, and want to stay in business.
As the business owner, I've several choices:
1. I could create my own Express Delivery Service and deliver my packages in the time required at the true cost of delivery.
2. I could build the cost of over-night, next day or 2 day air into my product and a make it seamless to the end user.
3 I could just pass that charge along and let UPS bill me and in turn bill the customer directly for delivery.
4. I could have the customer pay UPS directly.
As the customer:
1. I can buy my product from someone who includes a delivery guarantee.
2. I am free to shop and chose any Express Delivery company out there that will guarantee my delivery at a rate I see fair.
3. I can skip the hassle and just buy the product locally.
Please tell me why as the business owner, I should demand that UPS deliver my product faster than what I paid for?
To quote Shakespeare, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Tell them to get in line and good luck. Your assuming there's a favor being done. I've clarified this. If I'm an ISP and you want me to prioritize any of your traffic. That's going to cost me, so I'm going to charge you. Last time I checked, that's capitalism at it's finest.
said by calvoiper:
"They understand that the revenue isn't in the application, it's in the access. "
I agree. SBC is again trying to monopolize associated markets based on their dominant position in access, and they will have mixed successes on the legal/regulatory front. What will be different this time is that there are other wires (and wireless frequencies) to the customer, so by the time they get done arguing that they have the ability to screw their competitor, but business will have passed them by.
This one I had to quote. What does SBC have to do with Rural ILECS? What evidence do you possess that shows SBC is degregading any of its customers IP traffic?
I think we're both just planted on different sides of the fence.
HJ | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | We are indeed planted on different sides of the fence.
I don't quibble with the concept of charging extra for premium service. I just don't think you can do that and claim that some lesser service is your "best effort".
As for the relevance to rural ILECs, I identified a specific rural case (Volcano Telephone) where ISP related discrimination happened. I also identified various other ILEC schemes over the years to eliminate competitors. It's not just SBC. Most rural ILECs act similarly, and VZ, BS, and Qwest all fall in line.
Finally, that famous Shakespeare quote is widely read two very different ways. Dick the Butcher speaks it in Henry VI, Part 2 as part of a discussion about overthrowing the government and installing their own supposed utopia. Some read it as part of the utopia, and some read it as part of the things which must be done to overthrow the government and install yourself as dictator. We probably sit on different sides of this fence, as well.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | | |
|
|
