how-to block ads
|
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 | |
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Metrocast Communic..
 ·Vonage
| 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. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to odog
As virtual larry points out below, the terms of the easement (many of which are renegotiated over time) could very well impact this approach.
Antitrust could possibly be a problem here--restricting a subscriber's choice to your affiliated VoIP provider could be an illegal "tying" arrangement.
Additionally, there would possibly be advertising claims--various Attorneys General, etc. might sue to require firms which deliberately degrade access to certain parts of the Internet to mention that in their advertising.
"Wide Open Internet" could become a marketing tool if the other guy restricts access. On the other hand, in all too many places, it'd be too easy for the cable company and the telco to agree with a wink and a nod to both restrict VoIP access.
Furthermore, either Congress or the FCC has authority to require non-discriminatory access over Cable and DSL. So far, it hasn't been used, but if all the Vonage subscribers out there start calling their Congresspersons, it likely would be.
Finally, odog, you seem to be taking a very "it's my network and I'll do with it what I want" position. The telcos did that in the '60's and lost. Heck, they even tried to prevent companies from making and giving away phone book covers because they obscured the telco's advertising. The telco's lost, and ISPs who restrict access will also lose--over time, and perhaps after delaying some VoIP uptake.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Metrocast Communic..
·Vonage
2 edits | said by calvoiper :
As virtual larry points out below, the terms of the easement (many of which are renegotiated over time) could very well impact this approach.
Antitrust could possibly be a problem here--restricting a subscriber's choice to your affiliated VoIP provider could be an illegal "tying" arrangement.
FCC has very limited right to internet access over cable. i forget the exact verbage but since it's not a "telcommunications product" it's not regualated in the same manner.
Additionally, there would possibly be advertising claims--various Attorneys General, etc. might sue to require firms which deliberately degrade access to certain parts of the Internet to mention that in their advertising.
"Wide Open Internet" could become a marketing tool if the other guy restricts access. On the other hand, in all too many places, it'd be too easy for the cable company and the telco to agree with a wink and a nod to both restrict VoIP access.
Furthermore, either Congress or the FCC has authority to require non-discriminatory access over Cable and DSL. So far, it hasn't been used, but if all the Vonage subscribers out there start calling their Congresspersons, it likely would be.
Finally, odog, you seem to be taking a very "it's my network and I'll do with it what I want" position. The telcos did that in the '60's and lost. Heck, they even tried to prevent companies from making and giving away phone book covers because they obscured the telco's advertising. The telco's lost, and ISPs who restrict access will also lose--over time, and perhaps after delaying some VoIP uptake.
Calvoiper
it's not a monopoly, so the telco comparison is not applicable. don't like the policies of broadband provider X, switch to broadband provider Y.
correct, i am very pro network owner. i use vonage myself, and run the network it travels on. putting me in a very unique position. the right of the network owner trumps everything, at any time the owner can decide to prohibit any service using their network. they have to face the repercussions from alienating the customers, but it's their choice to make.
this is identical to someone charging more for unfiltered(port 80,25,110,20-21,23 etc etc etc) internet access. even a better comparison, blocking VPN use like comcast did on their residential product. they had every right to do so, but eventually folded due to customers complaints, not muni upheaval or legal repercussions.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Gee, odog, do you think the network owner should be entirely free of any obligation not to discriminate?
What if they start refusing to provide access to websites owned by Hispanics? Or if they refuse to provide service to Arabs?
I'm even more troubled with your concept of network owner as God, now that you've indicated you are one.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Metrocast Communic..
·Vonage
| said by calvoiper :
Gee, odog, do you think the network owner should be entirely free of any obligation not to discriminate?
What if they start refusing to provide access to websites owned by Hispanics? Or if they refuse to provide service to Arabs?
I'm even more troubled with your concept of network owner as God, now that you've indicated you are one.
Calvoiper
i don't own a network, i just work for an ISP. don't get racial discrimination confused with business competition, they are on different ends of the spectrum. their motivation also is for massively different reasons. network owners are not god. this is a business, and they have a right to whatever they want within the word of the law.
i don't agree with breaking other peoples VOIP, just the fact that the broadband provide has every legal right to do so.(it's has come in meetings and is something i have petitioned against)
how about blocking access to kiddie porn the way BT is doing? i suppose you don't agree with them doing that? someone complaining that their VOIP stutters is like someone complaining that they have lag in everquest. the provider can either fix it or just tell them to deal with it. the customer then has a choice to either switch providers or deal with it.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
|
