VoIP Sabotage > This is probably going to cause problems.

reply to calvoiper

Re: This is probably going to cause problems.

said by calvoiper:

---

said by Tikker_LoS:

---

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

---

Well, what happens when SBC and Yahoo (who are already collaborating on DSL) decide that the way to make more money is to block their subscribers' access to Google?

That's a completely different situation

How is that even remotely related to forcing rebillers to make an investment in a network?

Would you support that as well?

Calvoiper

---

[digital][analog]y

reply to Tikker_LoS

Re: This is probably going to cause problems.

said by Tikker_LoS:

---

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

---

said by calvoiper:

---

Tikker,

Please refrain from inserting your own comments in the middle of language you are quoting from me. It incorrectly makes is look like I said something I didn't.

My point is to ask whether you think the ISP network owner should be allowed to partner with a single service/application/content provider in a given area and exclude others? You seem to think this is a great idea for VoIP, so is it also a good idea for search engines?

Additionally, you say:

said by Tikker_LoS:

---

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

---

I'm curious. Do you have the same feeling about eBay, Amazon, and others who use your ISP network (for which you charge your end user) to make a profit? If not, why is it OK for them to provide services, applications, or content to your subscribers without paying you but it's not OK for Vonage to do so?

Calvoiper

---

No, I can't see that it's different in any significant way.

Both eBay and Vonage have servers, albeit with somewhat different functions. eBay's server is a huge data bank, and Vonage's server is a gateway server interconnecting to the PSTN.

I will admit that in terms of bit count, a person spending 10 minutes talking with someone else using Vonage will almost certainly have "greater usage" of the ISP's facilities than someone spending 10 minutes surfing eBay's sites, but if ISP's really care about that, they should start charging by the bit. Until then, when they sell me a 256k up/ 1Meg down link on a flat monthly fee, they have no complaint whether I receive 20 kb or 60 Mb in any minute.

Your irrational insistence that VoIP providers are somehow using the facilities of the ISP in some fashion other than how eBay uses those same facilities sounds like the old telco arguments against resale. Such arguments totally ignore the concept of "added value", even if it's just a voice mail add on or a more attractive sign-up procedure.

In essence, I've always viewed arguments against resale as the ravings of an incompetent. After all, if someone else is able to resell your product at a higher price than you charge them for it, something is wrong with your approach, be it marketing, pricing, service, or whatever. (In many cases resale resentment stems from a desire to prop up an otherwise unjustifiable tiered pricing structure which resale deflates.)

Granted, if ISP's charged by the bit, there would be a difference in use, but it would automatically be charged for. (I don't see per-bit charging catching on anytime soon, but I'm far from infallible when predicting the future.)

Face it. The ISP's customers have paid for the access to the Internet at the stated capacity. How a customer uses that access is the customer's business, and not the ISP's.

Are you seriously contending that you, as an ISP controller, should be able to "allow" customer connection with those application/content/service providers you consider "worthy" and "disallow" connection with those providers you consider "unworthy", based on your evaluation of how meritorious the provider's presence is on the Internet? Sheesh.

Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

said by calvoiper:

---

Your irrational insistence that VoIP providers are somehow using the facilities of the ISP in some fashion other than how eBay uses those same facilities sounds like the old telco arguments against resale. Such arguments totally ignore the concept of "added value", even if it's just a voice mail add on or a more attractive sign-up procedure.

In essence, I've always viewed arguments against resale as the ravings of an incompetent. After all, if someone else is able to resell your product at a higher price than you charge them for it, something is wrong with your approach, be it marketing, pricing, service, or whatever.

Calvoiper

---

reply to calvoiper
Tracing route to vonage.com [216.115.24.188]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms 10.16.176.1
2 10 ms 11 ms 9 ms 12-215-20-1.client.mchsi.com [12.215.20.1]
3 26 ms 23 ms 23 ms 12-215-6-18.client.mchsi.com [12.215.6.18]
4 25 ms 26 ms 24 ms gbr5-p80.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.5.218]
5 22 ms 23 ms 23 ms ggr2-p300.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.33]
6 24 ms 23 ms 27 ms so-1-1-0.BR6.CHI2.ALTER.NET [204.255.174.9]
7 27 ms 24 ms 23 ms 0.so-5-3-0.XL1.CHI2.ALTER.NET [152.63.64.50]
8 22 ms 23 ms 23 ms 0.so-0-0-0.TL1.CHI2.ALTER.NET [152.63.68.82]
9 44 ms 44 ms 62 ms 0.so-7-0-0.TL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.146.54]
10 44 ms 43 ms 44 ms 0.so-5-0-0.XL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.0.174]
11 48 ms 66 ms 45 ms 0.so-7-0-0.XR1.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.23.138]
12 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms 181.ATM6-0.GW4.NYC9.ALTER.NET [152.63.24.9]
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 vonage-gw-customer.ALTER.NET [157.130.217.218] reports: Destination net un
reachable.

I don't know if that is where Vonage has their gateway, but the sky will fall soon because AT&T does VoIP and Mediacom is going to do it too. I don't really know that much about MCI's (alter.net) VoIP plans.
Maybe every single VoIP provider will sue every ISP and backbone provider out there and realize that they just can't screw around with regulators like the telcos did/do.
--
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

reply to Tikker_LoS
I think the contemplated lawsuits won't be asking for a particular grade of service, but instead for the SAME grade of service over the ISP's facilities as the ISP's own VoIP service.

You may see nothing wrong with leveraging your total control over a customer into a way to force that customer to buy your affiliated product instead of a competitor's product. The Federal Courts may well not agree with you. Aside from the antitrust and other issues mentioned above, they may even find that you are deliberately interfering with the contract between your the end-user and his VoIP provider if you treat them differently.

This is going to be fun--almost as much fun as watching a judge tell some moron that he can't beat his wife or his kids and will get 10 years in the pen to learn that....

Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

I think it's kind of silly to compare offering superior QoS to your own customers to someone who beats their wife/children

I'm not sure why the concept of giving better QoS to someone that's paying you more seems to foreign to you

(making some numbers up here)

If I'm paying $100/month, and you're paying $50/month, does it seem logical for you to complain that I'm getting QoS assurances over and above the standard $50/month you're paying?

I'm not comparing QoS to beating your children. I'm comparing the pleasure of watching a judge bring a family thug to justice to the pleasure of watching a judge bring a business thug to justice.

IF, and it's a significant (and legally explorable) IF, I'm paying extra JUST for the QoS, and I'm equally able to use that with a competitor's VoIP or your own VoIP, then it's an appropriate charge. But if you pad the QoS charge so that regardless of whose VoIP a customer uses, it contributes an effective subsidy to your VoIP, or if you restrict the QoS to those customers that subscribe to your VoIP, then you are likely to find yourself in a legal morass.

Have fun. The lawyers will appreciate your determination to discriminate against competing VoIP providers because it will cause them to collect significant fees.

Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

I'm not sure how they could even remotely make a case for it

you would be buying internet access from the ISP

you're entitled to the standard QoS of a standard internet access account

you get what you pay for

If you sign up for the additional VoIP service from the ISP, because they control the network, they can prioritize your VoIP traffic

If you're using VoIP from a different company, they're still just going to process those packets as IP traffic, no different from browsing, P2P, etc etc

Now if the 3rd party VoIP company wants a higher level of QoS for their subscribers, they need to come to an arrangement with the ISP. There should be no way to force an ISP to suddenly provide better QoS for a competitor, when they're already meeting the internet account QoS

Again, it boils down to whether or not the ISP is discriminating against competing providers of a separate, but potentially affiliated, service.

If they are, they are likely to be on the receiving end of legal action on several grounds.

Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!