Upset charter custom
@mn.cha
thumbs down from:
BillRoland 
| [Connectivity] Blocking VOIP from network
Charter in my area has decided to block both Packet 8 and Vonage VoIP networks, They have their own telephone service they are trying to sell, They told me they can activate my VoIP service, for $5.00 per month. up untill last week it worked fine, is this even legal? I agreed to pay the 5 bucks for now, because i need my telephone, but i am looking into this, is this a common practice for Charter? |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey | Its not true, I use Vonage just fine.
Sounds more like you needed a second IP and you are paying 4.95 per month for it. |
|
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2002-08-03
USA
|  said by pit_viper :Its not true, I use Vonage just fine. Sounds more like you needed a second IP and you are paying 4.95 per month for it. yup ...they don't block it.
--
STOP THE JAMSTER COMMERCIALS! |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to pit_viper
said by pit_viper :Its not true, I use Vonage just fine. Sounds more like you needed a second IP and you are paying 4.95 per month for it. That's good in a way then isn't it? I mean, didn't they used to charge $10 for a second IP?
--
Spread Opera, fastest browser on earth or Cyberspace! |
|
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2002-08-03
USA | said by cork1958 : didn't they used to charge $10 for a second IP? no |
|
MrBeetle9
join:2004-02-01
Madison, WI | You can also get this fancy thing called a "router" instead... |
|
Upset charter custom
@mn.cha
| reply to Upset charter custom
No I have one of those fancy little routers, the charge is to allow my modem connect to the packet8.net server. I went round and round with this issue with packet 8 first, I thought my DTA310 (voip terminal) went south on me, I tried everything before calling charter, and they had the magic answer right away, they asked me to power cycle the modem after 5 min, it was working fine. they said somthing about being a competitave market, with their brand of telephone service. we do not have telephone service from charter in this area, but Eau Clair WI does, and we are in the same "KMA" whatever that means. |
|
borked
Cheese With That Whine?
Premium
join:2003-08-10
Kalamazoo, MI | »Carriers Blocking Vonage? |
|
MrBeetle9
join:2004-02-01
Madison, WI | Hrmm... Odd - but for what it's worth, packet8 works just fine here in madison. |
|
volntn
The Volunteer
Premium
join:2002-01-05
Cleveland, TN
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Upset charter custom
I seen a news story on Google and Technews that stated Vonage is suing an unnamed Large cable ISP for Blocking there service. Rumors state it is Charter or Comcast and the named defendant will be made public in the next few week's. The FCC is also looking at the case and may impose regulation much like they have to the Bells,that open's the Cable pipes up to other companies. Bad move by whichever company is doing it. |
|
NoNewsIsGoodNews
@delphiauto.com | reply to Upset charter custom
said by Upset charter custom:
is this a common practice for Charter?
...Newsgroups = yes |
|
jinu117
join:2003-01-01
Riverside, CA | Wasn't comcast for sure a month ago. Isn't charter I am using now despite the fact, service is flakey due to their abhorrant latency issue & bandwidth issue plaguing their service right now. |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to Upset charter custom
It's been reported in the news in the last couple of days that Vonage has made a formal complaint to the FCC about this sort of blocking, and that the FCC is looking into it, although the article did not specifically mention which broadband providers were being accused of doing the blocking. See this article:
»www.advancedippipeline.com/news/60400413
I will just say that if Charter does try something like this, it may have a lot of unintended consequences for them. In Michigan, for example, there are many places where the local phone company offers DSL for considerably less that Charter's broadband offering, and I think the speeds are as good or better (usually better on the upload speed). If they ever decide to offer unbundled broadband (that is, you don't have to take their dial tone to get DSL) Charter stands to lose a lot of business, and if Charter cuts off people's chosen VoIP that may cause many more customers to re-think whether they want to switch to DSL.
I mean, a typical customer's thought process might go something like this: I could stay with Charter and get broadband only, but pay about $20 a month more than I would pay the phone company IF they would sell me DSL without dial tone, but since they won't it makes their price higher, particularly when you add in the taxes and bogus fees. However, if I go with DSL and one line of basic no-frills phone service, I may pay a little more but I get one line that 911 is absolutely guaranteed to work on and that I can receive as many incoming calls as I want on, a more reliable and possibly faster broadband connection, and I can use my chosen VoIP provider for all my "real" calls including long-distance (this is assuming the customer is not on one of those little monopolistic phone companies that has the motto "Screw the customer, then screw him again, then make sure he can never connect to any kind of communications service other than ours"  hanging in their break room, because I have heard rumors that some of these second- and third-tier companies may be trying this sort of blocking also).
It seems to me that the ONLY reason Charter gets away with charging as much as they do for broadband is because the major phone companies (with the exception of Qwest) refuse to sell unbundled (a.k.a "naked") DSL, and/or don't offer DSL in all their service areas. But DSL penetration is growing and the major phone companies are putting their oars in the VoIP waters so I expect that they will start offering DSL without traditional dial tone soon. Furthermore, since there is absolutely no debate over whether telephone companies are common carriers, they would have a very difficult time engaging in blocking (I'm sure that's one reason the FCC decided to look into this so quickly).
Mark my words, if the cable industry wants to see more regulation slapped on it, all it has to do is start blocking certain types of broadband connections unless there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. What I mean is, they might be able to justify port 25 spam blocking, but blocking a competing VoIP service is a whole other matter. Ask yourself, suppose a cable company decided to block access to Dish Network or DirecTV's sites? Suppose phone companies decided to block access to cell phone company sites other than the ones they have ownership in? Where would it end? You only get to access the information and services that your broadband ISP deems appropriate (with "appropriate" being defined as, "anything that might draw customer dollars away from us")?
So if Charter really does this they not only stand to lose customers, but they are also painting a big target on themselves as far as regulators are concerned. Something like this has the potential to REALLY backfire all over them! |
|
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2002-08-03
USA
| said by WhyADuck :It's been reported in the news ... ... I think the speeds are as good or better ... this is assuming the customer is not on I have heard rumors that some ... of these second- Wow ...that's a lot of assumptions for something Charter and other ISP's clearly don't do....know what I'm sayin.
said by WhyADuck :Mark my words, if the cable industry wants to see more regulation slapped on it, all it has to do is start blocking certain types of broadband connections unless there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. What I mean is, they might be able to justify port 25 spam blocking, but blocking a competing VoIP service is a whole other matter. Exactly. Why would any ISP block VOIP?
said by WhyADuck :Ask yourself, suppose a cable company decided to block access to Dish Network or DirecTV's sites? Suppose phone companies decided to block access to cell phone company sites other than the ones they have ownership in? Where would it end? You only get to access the information and services that your broadband ISP deems appropriate (with "appropriate" being defined as, "anything that might draw customer dollars away from us")? See/review the laws of DNS for your answer to that one. This is just a tin foil hat blanket statement, and I'm not trying to be rude. It's literally impossible unless ISP's invested money into filtering boxes ...but don't you think people would catch on after a few people starting noticing? It would be a HUGE scandal ...one that could ruin an ISP. ISP's (any business for that matter) are more concerned with getting new customers and keeping the existing ones happy. Content filtering isn't even an option. Really, it isn't 
said by WhyADuck :So if Charter really does this they not only stand to lose customers, but they are also painting a big target on themselves as far as regulators are concerned. Something like this has the potential to REALLY backfire all over them! A big target? Cause one person is having a PC issue and can't get his VOIP to work? ISP's do not block VIOP. Period. Point Blank. Anyway, the FCC report will tell the same. Why they need to start an investigation is beyond me. Anyone who has spent 5 minutes doing any networking could of told them. |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| So are the folks at internetnews.com part of the tin foil hat crowd also?
»www.internetnews.com/infra/artic···/3485271
Quote from the article:
"There was one malicious, intentional incidence of port blocking," Brooke Schulz, Vonage's senior vice president of corporate communications, said Wednesday. "We've had initial meetings [with the FCC] to discuss our options." I would like to believe what you are saying, and for the most part I do, but I still think we need to be vigilant on this issue. |
|
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2002-08-03
USA
| Well, first off, this article is dated today....you posted a week ago, so there have obviously been some new developments. Secondly, imo, what you are seeing isn't an issue of port blocking. More than likely, it's a matter of assigning a single IP address to a customer. I mean, look at the instructions on Nuvio's (the company who filed suit) website. Look at the diagram here:
Maybe the router should hang off the modem 1st? Until we see proof of port blocking, all we have is serious PEBCAK issues. Customer service people are probably getting sick of taking calls and the ISP's will not troubleshoot 3rd party hardware ...so we have a he said, she said issue going on. After a customer calls Vonage or whomever, and they can't get their equipment working, of course they are going to point fingers at the ISP's. And it may very well be an issue with the ISP, but I seriously doub't it's port blocking. |
|
borked
Cheese With That Whine?
Premium
join:2003-08-10
Kalamazoo, MI
| Yep, looks like part of the problem is Nuvio's required setup. It's the same problem that ATT had when they rolled out VoIP. The setup should be like QuantumVoice's (the VoIP provider I use) where the ATA can be on the other side of the router.
--
It is much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.
Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990) |
|
InnerMe
join:2002-08-30 | reply to Upset charter custom
My vonage works without a hitch on my charter service. |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05 | reply to Upset charter custom
Well.... now THIS certainly makes one go hmmmmmm.....
»informationweek.com/story/showAr···59400250 |
|
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2002-08-03
USA
| yup. more he said she said. Vonage is going to come out of this looking pretty silly imo.
This makes me go hmmmmmmm as well.
»VoIP Outage Mania |
|
