Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Consumer Advocates Embrace FCC's Latest Comcast Inquiry » I can see both sides here...
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
1002
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
It's real simple folks..... »
« So simple...  
page: 1 · 2 · 3
AuthorAll Replies

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?


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

said by bzmeteorite See Profile :

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?


djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable

reply to 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.
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 See Profile :

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

reply to djrobx
said by djrobx See Profile :

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.

bzmeteorite

join:2006-02-15
Nipomo, CA


1 edit
reply to djrobx
said by djrobx See Profile :

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?


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to bzmeteorite
said by bzmeteorite See Profile :

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? ...

devnuller

join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH

said by funchords See Profile :

said by bzmeteorite See Profile :

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.
So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse?

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable

reply to funchords
So then does that make FiOS and U-verse cable companies? They offer TV service over IP. Comcast offers Phone using IP. Why doesn't U-Verse have to go to each city? They claim they're not a cable TV service but yet they offer cable tv. it works over a coax in the home. hmmmm.. sounds like a cable company to me.

Also if you talk to Comcast actually to someone that knows what they're doing they will tell you that the DV actually does NOT touch the Internet. It stays off the Internet and stays on its private network. The Internet is not a private network. Thus why it does not count toward anything on the network.

trentboyea

join:2009-01-20
New York, NY

reply to espaeth
Exactly. If you want to identify Vonage or other traffic you have to inspect the packets. That requires DPI, which most everyone will tell you they don't want. It is either cool to look at packets or not - it can't really be both things at the same time I don't think.


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

reply to espaeth
said by espaeth See Profile :

said by djrobx See Profile :

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 .
Yes you can and do "access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network". At some point, the traffic leaves the Comcast network and flows over the Internet or some TelCo's network (unless both sides of the phone call are CDV numbers). VoIP is Voice over IP and thus IS an Internet-Based service. It flows over the same Comcast LAN as other Internet Traffic until it reaches an Peering point and passes to some other ISP's network. The "Last Mile" is carried by a separate channel to the Head End but then gets commingled with all other IP traffic as it flows through the the Comcast network.

trentboyea

join:2009-01-20
New York, NY

reply to videoOip
said by videoOip :

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?
Good point. According to another DSLR story here at »No, AT&T Is Not Throttling U-Verse, AT&T U-Verse does similar stuff. I am guessing Verizon FIOS is the same.

quote:
In order to provide a consistently high-quality video service, AT&T Uverse High Speed Internet throughput speeds may be temporarily reduced when a customer is using other U-verse services in a manner that requires high bandwidth. This could occur more often with higher speed Internet access products. It may be necessary, for some AT&T High Speed Internet users, for AT&T to set a maximum downstream speed on a customer line to enhance the reliability and consistency of performance.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq

reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL See Profile :

Yes you can and do "access the CDV infrastructure from outside of Comcast's network". At some point, the traffic leaves the Comcast network and flows over the Internet or some TelCo's network (unless both sides of the phone call are CDV numbers). VoIP is Voice over IP and thus IS an Internet-Based service.
There is nothing Internet-based about CDV. It's using the DOCSIS network to terminate to media gateways on Comcast's network to do SS7 or private SIP/H323 handoffs. None of that traffic touches an Internet backbone.

Standard Internet VoIP can be used on any open Internet connection -- I can go to my neighbor's house with my ATA, or make SIP calls from a hotel room over the Internet. You cannot register to Comcast's SIP gateways over the public Internet.


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

reply to bzmeteorite
said by bzmeteorite See Profile :

And how would they absolutely know that it's to a VoIP service?
How do I know that I am probably a HTTP session? The first hint is that I am talking to Port80 or 443. In the case of ViOP, the session would be going to the designated VoIP Port. As I stated in my comment, the IPN that the connection is going to is that of the VoIP's Server so an attempt to connect there is a GOOD indication of an VoIP session (especially in conjunction with the VoIP Port at the Server side).

trentboyea

join:2009-01-20
New York, NY

reply to devnuller
So if you had NYNEX / Verizon to choose from for landline. Then I had VoIP choices like Callvantage and Vonage and Sun Rocket. Then you get ccable companies offering choices too. Isn't that what is supposed to happen and shouldn't that kind oif competition be encourages? Any of these alternatives have more features for less money that my old landline 10 years ago. And when they came on the market, the landline services started to have better prices and bundles of minutes and stuff like that.

trentboyea

join:2009-01-20
New York, NY

reply to funchords
said by funchords See Profile :

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.
So what? My buddy just switched to FIOS due to a great price offer and his phone service shares the same fiber wavelength as his Internet connection.


NetAdmin
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

reply to devnuller
said by devnuller See Profile :

So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past?
Moving phone to a separate channel on the cable has other, more technically sound reasons going for it. CLI and ingress mitigation come to mind. With the old TDM based system with NIUs, you could move the phone channels around if you had interference.

But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"
-
Forums » Consumer Advocates Embrace FCC's Latest Comcast InquiryIt's real simple folks..... »
« So simple...  
page: 1 · 2 · 3


Thursday, 03-Dec 06:37:54 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [162] Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
· [98] Graduate Student Unveils Sprint's GPS Sharing With Feds
· [80] Latest Consumer Reports Survey Not Kind To AT&T
· [77] Avast Antivirus Has Gone Mad
· [70] Baltimore To Ban Lazy Cable Installs
· [62] Broadband Killed The Game Console
· [55] Rogers Unveils The ISP Dream Model
· [46] ACTA: Global Three Strikes
· [41] Rural Carriers Quickly Embracing Fiber
· [40] AT&T, Verizon Drop 3G Ad Dispute
Most people now reading
· False positive in Avast! or is it real? [Security]
· Quality/longevity of 15A 120V receptacles [Home Repair & Improvement]
· [Newsgroups] Newzleech down? [Filesharing Software]
· ToC 4th boss - Preliminary Strategy for Twin Valkyr [World of Warcraft]
· Working in a Stairwell and Surrounding High Walls [Home Repair & Improvement]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Opening a file download dialog from a JavaScript function. [Webmasters and Developers]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· [Config] cisco asa 5505 with multiple outside IP addresses [Cisco]
· Clear vs. Energy Efficient Windows (Motorola Modem) [Clearwire]