said by David :

things that make me think hmmmmmmmm... with crap like this a lot of people will say FU to the VOIP.

said by WhyADuck :

Well, I would thing that a lot of them would instead say "FU" to that broadband provider, especially if there were ANY other options.

But I think (or at least hope) that sooner or later congress and/or the FCC will get involved and make that sort of blocking illegal. It will probably happen right after some Washington bigwig is seriously inconvenienced by not being able to use an important high-bandwidth application.

I mean, when you think about it, this is somewhat like a telephone company refusing to connect calls to a competing phone company (CLEC), or charging long distance rates for what should be local calls. There have been phone companies that have tried such things and usually they are quickly fined and required to sign an agreement saying they'll play nicely from then on (if they don't sign, the fine is much much larger, so they always sign).

said by WhyADuck
charging long distance rates for what should be local calls. There have been phone companies that have tried such things and usually they are quickly fined and required to sign an agreement saying they'll play nicely from then on (if they don't sign, the fine is much much larger, so they always sign).
[/BQUOTE:

i've had that problem before. calling 10miles to one of the near by villages, the only thing that happened is $150 of the calls were credited back. the PUC didnt do anything else. SBC was free to go and still expects to be paid for the rest.

I'd use VoIP any day or cell service before landline.

knowing SBC they most likely bought their way out of it. and to this day its still marked as Long Distance but the state says its local. So POTs customers do not have it much better.