VoIP Sabotage Nuvio argues for network neutrality A VoIP provider named Nuvio is warning the FCC that broadband providers will likely discriminate against VoIP services that either compete against their own service, or the service of their marketing partners. "Broadband providers have nothing to lose and everything to gain from degrading the connection quality of their customers who are using unaffiliated VoIP providers," argues Nuvio president and CEO Jason Talley.
|
  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | The Sky is Falling quote:
combat potential discriminatory practices
I, for one, would simply change broadband providers if I couldn't get a connection good enough to hold a VoIP phone call. So I'm not sure there is really a problem here -- but it couldn't hurt to proactively address it -- I guess. | |
|  |  grcoreChallenge Accepted
join:2003-12-06
usa
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·VOIPo
| Re: The Sky is Falling said by ronpin:
I, for one, would simply change broadband providers if I couldn't get a connection good enough to hold a VoIP phone call. So I'm not sure there is really a problem here -- but it couldn't hurt to proactively address it -- I guess.
Many areas in the US do not have a a wide selection of broadband providers, and with such a limited selection these providers can leverage their services and possibly limit services of other VOIP providers.
g | |
| | | version3DInfidels Won
join:2004-07-24
Deep River, CT | Re: The Sky is Falling Yes, but it would also be extremely difficult to prove, if not impossible, that the person's ISP is responsible for degradation of a competing VoIP provider or if it is the VoIP provider itself that is responsible for service degradation. | |
| | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: The Sky is Falling Maybe hard to prove, maybe not.
Deliberate degradation of service would leave some fingerprints behind, and when sworn under oath, many people do in fact tell the truth.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5
·Comcast
1 edit | umm it's their network they can do whatever the hell they want 
broadband providers have no obligation to allow a competitor to use their network. besides the fact that they will alienate a mutual customer their is no downside.
when QOS starts to gain more precedence on networks, unaffiliated VOIP using only best effort will just suck compared to prioritized QOS protected VOIP.
i say start making friends nuvio, because you obviously see the writing on the wall.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
| |  woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: umm it's their network I might be wrong, but didn't a lot of these providers get easements from municipalities etc?
--
BlooMe | |
| | | odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: umm it's their network 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. | |
| | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: umm it's their network 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! | |
| | | | | odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: umm it's their network 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 Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: umm it's their network 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! | |
| | | | | | | odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: umm it's their network 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. | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
|
| Sumeet0
join:2000-12-01
Chantilly, VA | Odog,
What you say is not correct.....it's like power company saying that we will only support appliances from XYZ companies. Broadband access is a commodity and when a telco or cable co is dependent upon a muni for access rights...they better make sure that they do not pull a stunt like that. Plus I am against any bid by muni governments to take over the role of an ISP....I am sure there are lots of media/telcos that can replace an incumbent cable co.
just my 2 cents
Regards | |
| | | odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: umm it's their network said by Sumeet0:
Odog,
What you say is not correct.....it's like power company saying that we will only support appliances from XYZ companies. Broadband access is a commodity and when a telco or cable co is dependent upon a muni for access rights...they better make sure that they do not pull a stunt like that. Plus I am against any bid by muni governments to take over the role of an ISP....I am sure there are lots of media/telcos that can replace an incumbent cable co.
just my 2 cents
Regards
the muni has absolutely no jurisdiction over what travels over a broadband operators network. they have no right to say who and or what can be used on the network. the broadband operator at any time can block any program from working at their discretion. they have to face the negative feedback of the customer but it's a choice they have every right to make. this is akin to a muni saying that a cable operator cannot removal or add a specific channel. all they can do is complain, nothing more.
the muni only has very limited power, and it's strongest time is during franchise renewal. at that point they can bargain for concessions, at all other times all they can do is complain.
the electrical analogy is flawed. the power company is only required to deliver 110-120 VAC @60Hz. they are completely agnostic about what equipment you use. as long as they are getting correct "juice" to your house, you can't complain.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
|
hedyd4uPremium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Yeah right Of course broadband providers will do this because they want you to use all or nothing. They also want you to send in blank signed checks for the payment too. | |
|  jose3030Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Like the great Justin Timberlake once said *heh*..
CRY ME A RIVER | |
| hedyd4uPremium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Rural markets in danger?
In particular, Nuvio is concerned that rural ILECs will use discriminatory practices to artificially keep VoIP competition from reaching rural customers.
Most rural markets have no broadband where is the danger here? | |
| | BBWEST
join:2004-09-05
Port Angeles, WA | Re: Rural markets in danger? no sh*t
rural = no broadband | |
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: Rural markets in danger? Yeah, but it's a developing worry.
Out here in California, the CPUC had to order Volcano (Ca.) Telephone to stop blocking calls to an ISP that was competing with Volcano Telco's affiliated Volcano Internet.
Volcano was just "dumping" the calls--in the words of one of the network engineers, they just "fell on the floor uncompleted" after the switch was programmed to block.
Stuff like this will happen over time.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
1 edit | Regulate or not? quote:
In the comments, Nuvio asserts that broadband Internet access providers, who also offer VoIP services, have economic incentives to discriminate against unaffiliated VoIP providers in favor of affiliated providers. If left unregulated, this discrimination will endanger the vibrant competition that currently exists in the VoIP market and ultimately harm consumers.
So what do VoIP providers want? Regulation or not? I wish they would just make up their mind on this.
--
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 | |
| | | | Re: Regulate or not? they want regulation of the broadband industry... | |
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| said by pcscdma:
So what do VoIP providers want? Regulation or not? I wish they would just make up their mind on this.
In the words of a famous economist, Alfred Kahn, "Deregulation does not mean you fire the policeman."
In other words, saying you want an unregulated marketplace doesn't mean that the competition should be free to burn down your plant or engage in a boycott--it just means that the "economic regulation" regarding rates, offerings, and terms of service isn't needed. In most all areas, non-discrimination is one of the requirements which remains after deregulation.
I, for one, feel that requiring ISPs to be content neutral (unless otherwise requested by the subscriber, such as blocking porn) is a good idea. It's hardly "regulation" in the utility sense. It's more akin to traditional antitrust enforcement.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | This is probably going to cause problems. What happens if the broadband provider implements a QoS feature that they only bundle with their own VoIP? Their network could normally be laggy as hell and VoIP could be impossible. But when you get their VoIP they turn on the QoS for you and VoIP becomes possible. Can the broadband provider restrict an extra feature that is necessary for competition? I would assume that they could, or they could charge a 10 a month fee for it and waive the fee when you use their VoIP service. Of course if the connection normally has low pings, this would become a non issue. | |
| | pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | Re: This is probably going to cause problems. I can just see Nuvio starting a legal battle with providers that don't provide 100% uptime.
This is a problem with almost any company that has no responsibility for equipment between the company and the customer's equipment.
They could blame sub-optimal peering with other ISP's or the port blocking that seems to be popular today.
--
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 | |
| | | | | Re: This is probably going to cause problems. 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 | |
| | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: This is probably going to cause problems. 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?
Would you support that as well?
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | Re: This is probably going to cause problems. That reminded me of this -
»news.com.com/MSN+blocks+e-mail+f···653.html
What content I recognised from it to remember this remains a mystery. | |
| | | | | | | If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? Cal, My friend.
You can't have your cake and eat it too! Remember?....voice is an "Application". It must stay Non-Regulated or the World Markets will collapse.:) It's not fair that the Bell's want it regulated like traditional, switched, voice. Down with Regulation. VoIP....the death knell blah, blah, blah.
Let's take a look at some of your FUD:
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.
Impact how? What do easments have to do with the way your ISP prioritizes it's traffic?
said by calvoiper:
Antitrust could possibly be a problem here--restricting a subscriber's choice to your affiliated VoIP provider could be an illegal "tying" arrangement.
I don't remember any guarantees when I signed up. I also don't remember my ISP guaranteeing anyone else's applications. It's a stretch, but I don't think so.
said by calvoiper:
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.
The Cable Company scenario makes sense since their networks are true monopolies. They've also shown that they will block traffic (VPN, Hosted Servers, etc). The Telco on the other hand, has a history of not being this way. Besides, who would be degrading the access? I thought that IP was a "Best Effort" service. If it's best effort in nature, and your call quality sucks, pay for something that's not Best Effort. Besides, I'm still looking for a Cable Co or Telco DSL with Network Guarantees (Availability, Packet Loss, Latency & Jitter) that are worth anything.
said by calvoiper:
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.
Do you ever get tired? I would suggest those Vonage users start calling about all the crappy service they're probably receiving (oh yeah, I read those forums on BBR!!).
said by calvoiper:
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.
Well.......it is their network....right? Why are we having this argument again? Didn't we just go through all this UNE garbage. Can't someone take notes on what TA96 accomplished. You don't own it, so you can't control it. If you want to control it, dump the cash (and Vonage has plenty of it BTW) on your own network (or partner up). End of discussion.
If the ISP's end up losing this one, it's going to be way too late in the game to matter. My thoughts (not that anyone cares) is that by the time it matters, IPTel will be free (Thank you Jeff Pulver!!!), or a bolt on product from your ISP. Tell me then what value a Vonage type provider offers? It will be fun, but they're only building a market for the big boys.
said by calvoiper:
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?
Would you support that as well?
Calvoiper
This SBC/Yahoo scenario isn't working for me. First, we're not China. Secondly, no ISP in their right mind is going to block any website (without proper reason). The argument here is asking the broadband access provider to prioritize a non-affiliated Application across it's network. They have no right. I'm thinking that maybe Microsoft should jump into the fray with Microsoft Live Netmeeting and AOL with AIM, etc. Let's all slide down this slippery slope.
I'm with Tikker_LoS, Let's compromise and require the Vonage/VoicePulse/Packet8/whomever, go out and build an IP back-bone and let them worry about traffic priority.
HJ:) | |
| | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? OK, highjinx, call it FUD if you want, but facts are facts:
If your ISP is a Cable Co. or a Telco or a BPL electric utility, its lines pass over municipal streets, sidewalks, and easements. Those municipalities could easily add a "non-discrimination" clause into the use of ROW ("Right Of Way") language the next time these agreements are renegotiated. In many states, this authority rests with the State PUC for telco service, but is still with the municipalities for non-telco services such as Cable and BPL. So the arguments above regarding ISP use of municipal easements are valid. (And yes, the non-discrimination clause could apply to routing schemes affecting QoS just as well as "bare access".)
As for antitrust--it wouldn't have been something you got a "guarantee" on when you signed up. Antitrust is a body of law that applies to virtually all commerce and forbids certain types of activities that unscrupulous companies have used to kill competition, such as price fixing, group boycotts, "tying" arrangements, and market division. (It's what got ATT broken up and the Baby Bells banned from long distance in 1982, and it's what caused the Bell System to separate Western Electric in the late 1940's.)
The "tying" prohibition of antitrust law should interest you, highjinx. It essentially says that if you have a very strong position in one market, you may not use it (through either contractual or technological means) to force people to buy your affiliated products in another market. It is what forced IBM to allow disk drives from other manufacturers to be connected to IBM mainframes. (Of course, folks like you were saying "If they want to sell disk drives, let them build their own darn mainframes!" Sound familiar? The government didn't buy it then, and may not buy it now.)
You (wrongly) claim that the Telcos "have a history of not being this way [blocking competitors]." Actually, the telcos have a long history of being this way, as well documented in the anti-trust lawsuits that reshaped the Bell System that I mentioned above, as well as the Volcano Telephone example I mentioned in a separate posting in the rural thread. (SBC even attempted to forbid non-SBC home routers on DSL in California for a while, until regulators started asking questions and SBC realized how stupid they looked trying to monopolize the home router market in the home state of Silicon Valley.) In point of fact, few industries have been the subject of as many antitrust cases as the telephone industry. Additionally, for that part of their business regulated as "common carriers", the telcos have long been under strict "non-discrimination" requirements, requirements that were imposed to combat a long history of discriminating against competitors--so to the extent you think telcos "haven't been that way", it's due to regulation and legal enforcement, not the (non-existent) sense of fair play you attribute to the Telcos.
As for possible Congressional action, I think we'll see it before long--and no, I don't get tired of exposing monopolists as the thugs they are.
You also attempt to draw a distinction between deliberate degradation and a limitation on availability of premium QoS. For most, if not all, of my points this distinction is meaningless--it matters little whether the discrimination against a competitor is the imposition of a definite negative or the artificial limitation on availability of a definite positive. Both are voluntary acts resulting in intended discrimination.
Your UNE and TA'96 arguments are misplaced--I carefully avoided using any TA'96 based reasoning. I only pointed out other, more general reasons that possible discrimination against non-affiliated VoIP providers might run afoul of the law. I expect to see such discrimination, and you seem to want it--and neither of us can reasonably expect the user community to embrace it, to put it mildly. There will be repercussions, to say the least.
Again, I don't begin to say that every one of my arguments will win or that they will keep ISPs from damaging VoIP competition. I expect that there will be some damage to VoIP competition because of ISP discrimination, and I've just outlined several ways I think it will be combated.
Finally, I tend to agree with you (so long as competition is kept open and available) that the trend will be towards free VoIP. Now while that may cause heartburn for the Vonage folks, it's a full blown Long Island Iced Tea Hangover of a nightmare for your beloved, yet whining, Baby Bells. Time for Big Ed and Little Ivan to cash out their pension plans before the gravy train goes bust, no?
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? Cal, you're talking about Telco regulations. This is an ISP issue.
ISP's don't file PUC tariff's and aren't governed by them either. ISP's (at least Telco ISP's) don't own the lines. Their Telco affiliates do. DSL (Let's look at SBC Yahoo since you love Big Ed so much) in particular consists of two elements: DSL transport, which is a telecommunications service (with only the line regulated by the PUC), and Internet access, which is an information service (SBC Internet Services). SBC Internet Services obtains DSL transport service from its telecommunications carrier affiliates (in this case ASI who I don't believe files tariffs with the PUC either). QoS will be supplied by the ISP so how will the PUC "regulate" them? Hold their right-of-ways hostage? I don't think they have any.
So if that's anti-trust, what is it called if you don't even offer it? How would I be in violation if it's something they don't guarantee in the first place? We're a long way from 1982 and even further from 1940. There isn't one ISP. There's hundreds, if not thousands.
This IBM argument is a good one, but what's it got to do with this? I didn't read anywhere that anyone provider was forcing their customers to purchase their voice service. The reason I'm not on the VoIP providers side is because I believe they aren't adding any value to the market...and because I believe the ISP's (once this gets going it's going to be crazy) will be offering a far superior service (in means of quality) because their soft switches will be closer to the customer. This will enable them to "guarantee" better service. It will probably even allow them to build it into their TOS/AUP. To me, that's common sense.
I wrongly claim??? Well, I am biased (as are you) to one side. I was speaking particularly of Telco DSL and Cable Co's blocking specific applications (remember the topic?). The facts are there. Cable Co's don't like VPN. They don't like shared networks. They don't like running servers...and will hate IP Tel from another carrier. Mark my words. They will make it difficult. Telco DSL on the other hand doesn't care if you VPN or run servers or share your network.
Now the whole SBC home router issue (man you like to go in diff directions!) had to do with supporting issues for customers who had non SBC provided routers. They still don't support anything other than what they provide. That's in their TOS (see next post).
I think we will see. We're going to see everyone jump into this market and it will drive voice pricing to it's lowest possible margins. Monopolist thugs? You're beginning to sound like Al Kayda...."We must defeat Telco Co...the Great Satan" hahahaha
First, let me say that I am impressed with your vocabulary. I do understand what your saying, but I don't think your right. As an ISP, I don't have to give the traffic coming from my customers or going out my routers anything other than "best effort" IP. I won't block your UDP packets. But I won't prioritize them either. I'll give you what comes in when it come in. I'm going to let my router treat them like it treats all other IP packets on the network.
Now, you can purchase my premium package where I will prioritize your voice (passing on QoS by MAC address maybe?), but that's will cost you $10 month. Or, Mr. Customer you can purchase my voice service for $15 month and QoS is built into the cost. How is this intended discrimination???
Yes, it was misplaced, but your point was so far into left field I thought I'd help push it along. It was coming. It always does. I don't want discrimination, but I don't like the fact that these VOIP companies are getting a free ride and have the nerve to complain about it. They're the worst kind. How can anyone justify this? Until "the internet" is classified as "voice service", nobody needs to guarantee anything. Personally, I think it will be the preverbal straw to the medium sized ISP's that still exist. We're talking about adding additional Operational Expenditures (most likely CapEx to set up) where there is no revenue recourse. Scream all you want.
Again, I don't begin to say that every one of my arguments will win or that they will keep ISPs from damaging VoIP competition. I expect that there will be some damage to VoIP competition because of ISP discrimination, and I've just outlined several ways I think it will be combated.
Who's to say who's going to win? Since your probably in the mix, I wouldn't even begin to argue how you believe it will be combated. I'm just on the other side of this argument believing that if you start putting these demands on ISP's to help the VoIP companies it becomes damaging to an already damaged industry. To me, it's just a new version of the same argument.
We don't need to agree about free voice. It's inevitable and will be here shortly. The Big Ed's of the world have the advantage. They understand that the revenue isn't in the application, it's in the access. Once voice gets to certain margins, the VoIP companies will have nothing to stand on. I mean nothing. This is more like a clogged main artery than heartburn for the Vonage folks.
HJ | |
| | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? Well, highjinx, you're committed at least.
I won't attempt to further convince you of the Telcos' long history of anti-competitive behavior--it's well documented and I've summarized the key points above (though to say the SBC home router flap was just a "support" issue is hilarious--they prohibited personal ownership of home routers until they realized they couldn't get by with it.)
And as for antitrust, it applies to all business, and doesn't draw lines at affiliates--so if the net effect of SBC's mumbo-jumbo of sham corporate subsidiaries is that SBC as a whole violates antitrust principles, SBC has a real problem.
Again, my points don't depend on either existing or traditional telco regulation. Both the State legislatures and the US Congress have the ability to legislate restrictions on Internet Service Providers--I'll expect we'll see various forms of legislation proposed, and some of it may pass. Go ahead and force your customers to buy your affiliated VoIP service if you want, but if Congress then comes after you hunting votes you have no one to blame but yourself.
And you are grinning through a piece of double talk--you claim you are only obligated to offer "best efforts" but they you mention a premium service with offers better service. Hey, I've got news for you--"best efforts" means "best efforts", not "best efforts except for those people I put in front of you because they slip me an extra $10." If you offer a premium service, by definition the rest of your services are not "best efforts".
As I've said, I don't claim that each of these possible arguments I've raised will win. I just think that ISP's will have to choose between either 1) treating all VoIP services, including their own, equally or 2) fighting a bunch of these legal/regulatory battles. Take your pick--there are plenty of attorneys out there who can bill you lots and lots to try and protect your ability to favor your own VoIP product. (Have a special time when NY AG Eliot Spitzer and other AGs sue you for misrepresenting your ISP product and favoring your VoIP product.)
But hey, don't believe me. Lawyers love clients who get in trouble first and then call because the ultimate billings are so much higher.
Finally, you said:
"They understand that the revenue isn't in the application, it's in the access. "
I agree. SBC is again trying to monopolize associated markets based on their dominant position in access, and they will have mixed successes on the legal/regulatory front. What will be different this time is that there are other wires (and wireless frequencies) to the customer, so by the time they get done arguing that they have the ability to screw their competitor, but business will have passed them by.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? said by odog:
calvoiper  think you and highjinx should just duke it out, he's far more prepared to defend himself 
Easy there fella. It's not my money they're fighting over.
HJ | |
|
| | | | | | | | odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| quote:
Forecast: 15 million-plus cable VoIP subs by '09
Jeff Baumgartner, CED
U.S. and Canadian MSOs will have more than 15 million IP telephony subs and capture more than $15 billion in revenue from incumbent telcos over the next five years, predicts Kinetic Strategies Inc., in a new study.
That, in turn, will create a market opportunity exceeding $3 billion for VoIP vendors, the research firm added.
Kinetic Strategies also predicted that North American MSOs will add more VoIP subs than high-speed data customers during that span.
"After years of false starts, North American cable operators are finally poised to capture a meaningful share of the local and long distance telephone services market by leveraging IP technology," said Kinetic Strategies President and Principal Analyst Michael Harris, in a release. "Cable operators already serve more than 2.5 million local telephone customers in North America using legacy circuit-switched technology. The industry's move to IP will reduce deployment costs while spurring application innovation."
Although best-effort, SIP-based services from companies such Vonage, AT&T and Verizon can work over any broadband connection, Kinetic notes that their quality and reliability "are often flimsy" when compared to the QoS-capable VoIP services cable operators can offer via managed PacketCable networks that sidestep the public Internet.
just read this. i thought it had some bearing, judge for yourself.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | I hate analogies
said by calvoiper:
A lot...
Committable...is more like it. Forgive me as it's been a long week and don't feel like HTML...
Over time, sure (how long they been around?) I don't doubt there's an inkling of truth to your claims. I just know there's usually two sides to every story with the truth meeting somewhere in the middle. You (always) just keep pointing at SBC as the culprits. This story was about rural ILECs.
SBC having all its subsidiaries isn't their creation. It was mandated this way. Besides, if you understood how it worked, you'd know it is more like a CLEC to CLEC relationship within subsidiaries than a couple of buddies trying to "put one over" on everyone.
I'm sorry. Who's regulating the internet? I missed that one. What's that groups name? Also, who's implying that anyone is forcing anyone to do anything?
I don't believe it's double talk. If I offer a service, there is usually a cost associated. I can either eat it or pass it on. Here's a simple one: I run a business selling perishables. The product I sell is available locally or online. I have many, many competitors all around the globe. The product I sell requires a two day delivery or it will perish (imagine that) and be useless to my customer. Now, just because my product is perishable, should I expect UPS (arbitrary) to ship my product over night, next day or two day air at the cost of Ground Rates?? Additionally, should my customer who paid my business me for the product assume that UPS will ship the package over night, next day or two day air at the cost of Ground Rates??? The truth is, UPS doesn't care WTF is in the package, they don't look inside the package, they just want to get it to its destination at correct delivery rate and time you paid for. They're operating a business too, and want to stay in business.
As the business owner, I've several choices:
1. I could create my own Express Delivery Service and deliver my packages in the time required at the true cost of delivery.
2. I could build the cost of over-night, next day or 2 day air into my product and a make it seamless to the end user.
3 I could just pass that charge along and let UPS bill me and in turn bill the customer directly for delivery.
4. I could have the customer pay UPS directly.
As the customer:
1. I can buy my product from someone who includes a delivery guarantee.
2. I am free to shop and chose any Express Delivery company out there that will guarantee my delivery at a rate I see fair.
3. I can skip the hassle and just buy the product locally.
Please tell me why as the business owner, I should demand that UPS deliver my product faster than what I paid for?
To quote Shakespeare, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Tell them to get in line and good luck. Your assuming there's a favor being done. I've clarified this. If I'm an ISP and you want me to prioritize any of your traffic. That's going to cost me, so I'm going to charge you. Last time I checked, that's capitalism at it's finest.
said by calvoiper:
"They understand that the revenue isn't in the application, it's in the access. "
I agree. SBC is again trying to monopolize associated markets based on their dominant position in access, and they will have mixed successes on the legal/regulatory front. What will be different this time is that there are other wires (and wireless frequencies) to the customer, so by the time they get done arguing that they have the ability to screw their competitor, but business will have passed them by.
This one I had to quote. What does SBC have to do with Rural ILECS? What evidence do you possess that shows SBC is degregading any of its customers IP traffic?
I think we're both just planted on different sides of the fence.
HJ | |
| | | | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? We are indeed planted on different sides of the fence.
I don't quibble with the concept of charging extra for premium service. I just don't think you can do that and claim that some lesser service is your "best effort".
As for the relevance to rural ILECs, I identified a specific rural case (Volcano Telephone) where ISP related discrimination happened. I also identified various other ILEC schemes over the years to eliminate competitors. It's not just SBC. Most rural ILECs act similarly, and VZ, BS, and Qwest all fall in line.
Finally, that famous Shakespeare quote is widely read two very different ways. Dick the Butcher speaks it in Henry VI, Part 2 as part of a discussion about overthrowing the government and installing their own supposed utopia. Some read it as part of the utopia, and some read it as part of the things which must be done to overthrow the government and install yourself as dictator. We probably sit on different sides of this fence, as well.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | | pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | said by calvoiper:
If your ISP is a Cable Co. or a Telco or a BPL electric utility, its lines pass over municipal streets, sidewalks, and easements. Those municipalities could easily add a "non-discrimination" clause into the use of ROW ("Right Of Way") language the next time these agreements are renegotiated. In many states, this authority rests with the State PUC for telco service, but is still with the municipalities for non-telco services such as Cable and BPL. So the arguments above regarding ISP use of municipal easements are valid. (And yes, the non-discrimination clause could apply to routing schemes affecting QoS just as well as "bare access".)
How about having VoIP providers set a QoS for themselves and get 911 working consistently?
Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
--
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 | |
| | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? ...a separate question, with a long and involved separate answer.
Basically, it boils down to the fact that VoIP providers don't know where their customers are physically located unless they are told. While it's quite possible to set up for a fixed address, it becomes MUCH harder for a computer or VoIP phone on the move.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? said by calvoiper:
...a separate question, with a long and involved separate answer.
I thought so. | |
| | | | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: If the sky falls, can I hide on your property? It's not as if the ISP has any guarantees--if I use ISPaffiliate VoIP service, and then go on the road to Dallas, my ISP provider has the same problems connecting me to 9-1-1 in Dallas that Vonage does....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | | 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
That's a completely different situation
How is that even remotely related to forcing rebillers to make an investment in a network? | |
| | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
| pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | You don't just turn on QoS and VoIP gets better. There is some configuration needed. You shouldn't expect ISPs to take the time to figure out what port numbers and IP addresses are in use for VoIP and block them because the VoIP providers can and will notice this and change things, trust me. I assume FTC rules already prohibit this type of practice so it isn't really worth the time to convince another federal agency to write redundant rules.
--
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 | |
| | | hedyd4uPremium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Re: This is probably going to cause problems. But politicians do redundant things all the time. | |
|
| pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | With all of this argument over how VoIP should be regulated, I wouldn't be surprised if we would have to contribute to the USF and kneel down to the FCC's regulations to access the Internet. It's beginning to make the VoIP providers look more and more like telcos and on the way to something more extreme. "It's my network. You can't share it with anyone." say the telcos. "Hey, it really isn't our network, but if we can convince the FCC to classify VoIP as a CLEC or something without classifying us as a telco we would be in total control of the Internet with minimal upfront investment." say the VoIP providers.
Honestly, it just doesn't make any sense and looks childish to have Yahoo! Google Microsoft and everyone else dictate how your ISP should operate. It still doesn't change when you put Vonage or Nuvio in the picture.
Take that pipe and smoke it.
--
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 | |
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| ...at least we agree on something.... We agree that VoIP providers are like application providers.
We may agree that having an ISP allow all application providers to access its customers is a good thing.
We may just disagree on how much government action is appropriate (or necessary) to ensure this equal access.
I don't know that governmental intervention will be necessary--perhaps market forces will discipline the ISPs. I do feel confident, however, that some ISP's will try to disadvantage non-affiliated content/application/service providers, and I expect that it will happen relatively soon to VoIP providers.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | We're getting somewhere... said by calvoiper:
We agree that VoIP providers are like application providers.
Let's even go one step further. Until VoIP providers quit lobbying and step up to the plate to CLEC status, they are Application Providers. No different than E-Fax, Video Email, or online gaming.
said by calvoiper:
We may agree that having an ISP allow all application providers to access its customers is a good thing.
I am in total agreement that ISP's shouldn't do any sort of port or application filtering/buffering/etc., unless it's something that is affecting the health/service of the network itself. If you pay for a connection to the internet, you should be allowed access to anything legally available....BUT, the quality and service responsibility falls on the Application Provider, not the ISP.
said by calvoiper:
We may just disagree on how much government action is appropriate (or necessary) to ensure this equal access.
I'd be careful about using the term Equal Access. Wasn't that part of the modified judgment to require customers of LEC's access to the LD carrier of choice with "1+" dialing? This has nothing to do with that since there is no internet application regulatory group.
said by calvoiper:
I don't know that governmental intervention will be necessary--perhaps market forces will discipline the ISPs. I do feel confident, however, that some ISP's will try to disadvantage non-affiliated content/application/service providers, and I expect that it will happen relatively soon to VoIP providers. Calvoiper
You know what.....I agree that some ISP's will protect their own investments if they believe they need to for survival, but I really don't think it will ever get to that. I believe without a doubt, that the Cable Co's will take it a step further and make it impossible for third party VAP's (Voice Application Provider - Hey, I think I've coined a new Acronym!) to find success with their customers. By the time the big wheel of governmental intervention comes around, it will be too late.
HJ
PS I was never a big fan of Shakespeare, but you have to respect the guy whose works are still taught 500 plus years later. I always thought the, "Let's kill all the lawyers" was a suggestion to taking away the law so the people had no protection. Thus helping the strength of the Dictatorship. I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice before.:D | |
| | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: We're getting somewhere... HJ,
I was trying to avoid the MFJ definition of Equal Access--that's the reason I didn't capitalize the term. I was speaking of a different concept--the ability to communicate with the end user over the facilities of the end user's ISP on the same terms as other content/application/service providers, regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with the ISP. I didn't have an quick idea of what term to use ("equal throughput", maybe?) and I sure don't want to try and define it with great specificity--defining Equal Access was hard enough, and I was part of that....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | Mixed Feelings There are really two ideas going on here at once. One (which I think Nuvio is talking about) is that broadband providers could detect VoIP packets and actively degrade those connections relative to standard IP connectivity. The other (which many posters have discussed) is that broadband providers will offer enhanced QoS for their own (or affiliated) VoIP services, while independent services can do no better than best efforts IP traffic.
The former is pretty obviously wrong. This is especially clear for applications that aren't VoIP, like, say, search. Technically speaking, a provider with a relationship with MSN could introduce 30 seconds of delay before delivering packets going to/from Google IP addresses...it's their network...but they really shouldn't. And never will (I don't think). But in the case of VoIP a provider could degrade a service very subtly, making it hard even for a very savvy end user to detect/prove.
But the latter doesn't bother me, and indeed, I think it's inevitable. Cablevision already markets Optimum Voice as being better than other VoIP services, because, in part, it doesn't rely on the public Internet. See: their FAQ.
At a minimum, independent guys like Vonage or Nuvio should reasonably expect speed/latency/packet loss stats for packets delivered to their networks on a par with the average for all other IP traffic from a given provider. But that may not be enough to make them as robust as a provider's own VoIP offering. I think that's just life. | |
| | cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA
1 edit | Re: Mixed Feelings A similar question has come up with respect to the rumor that TiVo wants to join up with NetFlix to allow DVDs to be dowloaded to a NetFlix customer's TiVo over a broadband connection, rather than the current NetFlix policy of sending DVDs via the U.S. Postal system. The point was raised that cable Internet providers could invoke their secret download caps to sabotoge such a product, in order to protect their own Pay-Per-View/VOD products. | |
|
| |
|
|
