VoIP ExtortionWill incumbent degradation of VoIP service be commonplace? ( old news - 03:35PM Tuesday Oct 25 2005) tags: VoIP · networkingA California company named Narus is making it easier for incumbent operators to filter out or degrade the quality of competing VoIP services. The technology should be very popular in countries where VoIP threatens entrenched telco monopolies, and there's no rules preventing VoIP blockades, reports Spectrum Online. While bad press might be a deterrent for outright blockades, "there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," a Narus rep says in the article. This sets up the scenario where you either pay the incumbent for their VoIP service, or pay the incumbent for a higher tier of service where the artificial VoIP hurdles are removed. "You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency, and also offer a premium to improve it," states the rep. When you consider this could also eventually pose a problem for competing IP video services, it becomes clear why consumer advocates want network neutrality protection embedded in the new Telecom Act rewrite.
Related:- AT&T Introduces New Home Manager System
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- AT&T Femtocells in 2009
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
|
 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Will Never happen in the US They would never do that here is the US. Companies like Comcast are above that.  | |
|  | robscullion
Premium
join:2001-12-07
Philadelphia, PA
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Will Never happen in the US I've been asking around about this recently, but can't find a lot of answers about regulations. The note above seems to imply that blocking would be illegal, but this article (»www.internetnews.com/infra/artic···/3485271) seems to say that it's not illegal for Comcast or any other cable modem ISP.
It'd be interesting to see whether CC thinks they could make more money by shutting off Vonage and pushing their own VoIP. VoIP is still ramping up to critical mass, so if they did it now and provided their own VoIP, it seems like they'd come out ahead in the end. Some Vonage customers would move to DSL as a protest, but in the long run they'd be locking a whole segment of the user base into yet another service. Seems like a no brainer.
I agree that such blocking should be illegal, but I can't seem to find a definitive statement of that fact. Anybody know for sure? | |
| | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I JUST KNOW..... ........ this will never happen in the US
Big Media block content to further their own agenda?
PShaw!
This is AMERICA after all!
I mean, it's not like Russia where a select group of elitists decide what we get (and don't get) from our media and content providers.
Surely here our media would never carefully craft our content to make it appear that we were getting what we are promised when in fact what is delivered is highly selective.
Geeezee-Louisie. You guys are SO paranoid.
Lighten up already.
NV
--
Abortion: It's really a Republican plot to thin the liberal herd! | |
| | | | bored_in_nh
join:2003-01-04
Stamping Ground, KY | Re: I JUST KNOW..... You are being sarcastic, right? This is indeed America, and stuff like that happens all the time.
--
FEMA = Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency | |
| | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | Re: I JUST KNOW..... Think CBSABCNBCCNNMSNBCNPR-etc....100 voices, 1 song.
NV | |
| | | | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I JUST KNOW..... said by Noah Vail  :Think CBSABCNBCCNNMSNBCNPR-etc....100 voices, 1 song. NV And FOX News is the answer to all of our doubts. Thank GOD!
--
In a fascist government, National Security ALWAYS override Personal Freedoms. | |
| | | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | 1 Up, 99 till even. Fox doubled the song count to 2.
I'll grant you it's only marginally better than the first song, but at least it's a DIFFERENT song.
NV | |
| | | | | | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA | Re: 1 Up, 99 till even. If you think Fox News is "better" you must be tone deaf. | |
| | | | | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Yea, don't blame ya...... If I were a defender of the left I'd want to dodge the issue too.
Fox is an opposing view of the liberal lockstep of nearly every other news delivering entity. I defend them because they bring some balance to the news-a-tainment industry.
If there were a truly unbiased major hard news outlet, I wouldn't spend this much time defending Fox. In fact I probably agree with you on some of your negative assessments.
But I give Fox the credit in that they at least (indirectly) portray themselves as a conservative news org. Whereas the left leaning Big Media is in a constant state of denial of their bias while simultaneously defending it. Imagine listening to a game of Twister.
And lets not forget, there is one conservative Fox and on the other side hundreds of liberal news-its.
In truth, I am a recovering liberal and still hold on to one or two of my past twisted beliefs. So maybe I still have a soft spot for lefties.
But I try to remember, leftists are artists and musicians and actors and liberal arts professors and whatnot.
For goodness sake, they're the hired help.
Whatever were we thinking letting them get anywhere near our government? I cling to the hope that our children are learning from our mistakes.
{noah steps off his soapbox and calls it a night}
NV
--
Abortion: It's really a Republican plot to thin the liberal herd! | |
| | | | | | | | | 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| Re: Yea, don't blame ya...... The idea of a liberal news media is a myth. It is an truly brilliant construction of the right. Imagine calling the news media that was heralding Bush throughout all of his missteps these past years "liberally biased." It's brilliant! Anything short of utter suppliance to the party line gets labeled "biased."
In reality: The big news media are lazy, and like to report what everyone else is reporting. They are timid, and don't like to critcize things that are popular. Finally, they are greedy, and love to report anything they think will make people watch. (That is, unless they are specifically created to serve an agenda, like Fox News.) | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| More Myths? Sheesh! First I find the Moon Landings are myths, then Auschwitz, now this!
Well, now that I am fully enlightened we can assume that if the current president had a D after his name there would be NO DIFFERENCE in the war coverage.
We can certainly evidence that by reading back all the negative editorials and constant stream of negatively focused bylines that were written about Somalia and Mogadishu......
all that negative press......hmm.
Well, it was there. Right between 540-Rooms for Rent and 560-Geriatric Supplies.
huh.
Well there was all that doom and gloom press before we went into Bosnia and Serbia like before we went into Iraq. And then constant second guessing Clinton while the wars went on.
Oh? None?
I guess the NYT-LAt-WAPst missed those wars. Well they probably had a charity event that weekend.
Well they certainly nailed Clinton to the tree for that Aspirin Factory bombing. Wheh! CBS must have covered that for 10, maybe 15 seconds! But it was a SCATHING 15 seconds.
Well, at least Newsweek covered the Sitting President - Lewinski thing with the same gusto they covered the George Bush DWI of 20 years ago.
No wait. Newsweek initially tried to bury the Lewinski story. Sorry. Forgot about that.
Well, I'm certain that having 75%-90% Journalists identifying themselves as Democrats vs. >10% Republicans has NO EFFECT AT ALL on our news coverage.
Oh! The #1 reason given in college to become a journalist?
"I want to help change the world"
Hmmm.
NV
--
Abortion: It's really a Republican plot to thin the liberal herd! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| And the winner is....... Will a comparison between Dem and Non-Dem do for you?
Well there is this 1995 poll by the Roper Center for the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent of Washington reporters polled voted for Bill Clinton. (RC is partnered by NYT, WPst and others.) That's about double the percentage of the country that voted for him. Not exactly a representative sample of US citizens.
And then there's a survey by the American Association of Newspaper Editors of over 1000 journalists in 1996 found that 61% of newsroom staffers identified themselves as Liberal/Democratic while only 15% were Conservative/Republican.
You can stick Libertarian journalists (both of them) anywhere you want in there and it won't change the outcome.
There's this nifty tidbit unearthed by NYT journalist John Tierney prior to the 2004 election showing a 3to1 preference for Kerry by journalists assigned to cover the election and a 12to1 preference for Kerry by journalists inside the beltway. There are several other instances in the article illustrating bias.
Sorry, I have to give a Google Cache link unless you want to pay for NYT archive browsing.
»64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:oy···22&hl=en
These journalist preference ratios are WAY off election results. They are nowhere near a representative sampling of the American Public.
What percentage of Americans are registered Libertarians? What percentage of Journalists are registered Libertarians? Blessed few I'd bet. I doubt they have any meaningful effect on the above numbers.
I'll wait here for your numbers that show that there really are as many conservatives as there are liberals in journalism.
NV | |
| | | | | | | | | |
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| Re: And the winner is....... Even if there were more 'liberal' reporters than 'conservative,' which would be an overwhelmingly simplistic view, it doesn't mean the news media is liberal.
The news media is a complex system and the journalists and reporters are beholden to much bigger forces than their own personal politics. Namely the forces I described in my post. | |
| | | | 
MichiganTelephone
@anonymizer.com
 from:
robscullion
|  Sarcasm aside, think about the legal liability
Of course companies could possibly absolve themselves of some liability by admitting up front to customers that they deliberately degrade VoIP services not their own, but then that might discourage some customers from signing up for that company's service in the first place. The whole point of degrading service is to be sneaky, so the customer doesn't realize that you're deliberately interfering with the service he thinks he's paying for. But by being sneaky and hiding the fact that you do this, you paint a big old target on your company in case anyone's life, health, or property is put in jeopardy because you deliberately impeded their access to 911 via their VoIP connection, simply because you or your company are greedy bastards.
That is why I think this will never happen in the U.S. - we have too many lawyers that would give up their Rolexes (if not their firstborn) to have a case like this, with a large communications corporation (with VERY deep pockets) that many people (including some that would undoubtedly wind up on any jury hearing the case) inherently dislike as a defendendant, and evidence of deliberate interference with the lawful use of the service the customer is paying for (that is, Internet connectivity), which resulted in death or serious injury - particularly since the FCC has already in effect put their stamp of approval on the use of VoIP to provide e911 service. Then again, it may happen because some corporate executives are so arrogant that they think that no law applies to them and that they can just buy their way out of any trouble that they might get into, but as certain Enron executives found out, real courtrooms dispense real punishments, even to high-powered corporate executives (and while I am not a lawyer, if it were ever revealed which executive made the decision to implement the blocking, I would at least want to see that person put on trial for manslaughter, or something similar that is an appropriate charge under the circumstances).
I just hope nothing tragic has to happen for this sort of deliberate interference to be outlawed by the federal government. But if the unfortunate should happen, I hope it gets at least as much publicity as when that guy got shot in Texas and his family couldn't use 911 on their VoIP service to summon help, because the guy had neglected to activate the 911 service on his line by giving his address information (this was what started all the furor over lack of 911 service on VoIP). And I hope that whatever corporation is responsible for the deliberate degradation is named in the press, and held to account for their actions. | |
| | | | | robscullion
Premium
join:2001-12-07
Philadelphia, PA
·Speakeasy
| Re: Sarcasm aside, think about the legal liability I have to say, I never even considered the 911 angle. Deliberate trickery would definitely open ISPs up to lawsuits/criminal charges if it interfered with E911.
Kind of funny that the very issue the Telco's probably thought would be a burden to all these startup VoIP companies could turn out to be the same thing that shields them from ISP shenanigans. | |
| bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | Threat to the internet? Doesn't this type of thing threaten the very existence of the internet.
If this attitude was allowed to continue, the internet becomes just like tv. "You can anly watch what we want you to watch" or "you can only use your internet for what we want you to".
Meatwad, I can absolutely see soon that ISP's will be messing with VOIP packets to and from a competitor. That way the poor customers will have to pay more for VIOP from their own ISP's. | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Threat to the internet? said by bgraham :Doesn't this type of thing threaten the very existence of the internet. If this attitude was allowed to continue, the internet becomes just like tv. "You can anly watch what we want you to watch" or "you can only use your internet for what we want you to". The internet and the providing ISP's aren't a public utility like the phone company. They can do what they want unless laws are passed to rule otherwise.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | |
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: Threat to the internet? What about the common carrier status. | |
| | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Threat to the internet? said by GlenQuagmire :What about the common carrier status. Cable companies were never classified as common carriers. And the telcos got an FCC ruling categorizing DSL service as an information service, thereby freeing them from common carrier status for DSL.
»news.com.com/FCC+changes+DSL+cla···713.html
The Federal Communications Commission on Friday voted to reclassify DSL broadband service, thus freeing phone companies of regulations that require them to share their infrastructure with Internet service providers.
DSL will now be considered an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service," a distinction that puts DSL in line with the classification of cable modem services. The change in semantics was expected after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Brand X case just five weeks ago. The court's decision upheld the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service.
Now the phone companies and the cable companies are exempt from "common carrier" rules that require them to share their infrastructure with Internet service providers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Antitrust laws don't require the company to be a utility. If they are abusing their market position (which telcos certainly have local monopolistic market position) to kill competition; that's illegal, no matter what sector of business they're in.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Threat to the internet? said by oliphant :Antitrust laws don't require the company to be a utility. If they are abusing their market position (which telcos certainly have local monopolistic market position) to kill competition; that's illegal, no matter what sector of business they're in. You are correct about the law on antitrust. But antitrust law is almost never enforced anymore(MS evidently being an exception initiated under a Democratic president). I wouldn't bet any money that the Justice Dept will do anything about antitrust issues, especially with cable and wireless competition existing for the telcos. Geographic de-facto monopolies apparently hold little interest to the enforcement division.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| 
slashman
Don't do it . ..
Premium
join:2003-10-01
Batavia, IL | Maybe Ebay should buy this company and shelve the technology to protect their $4B investment in Skype. | |
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Not illegal in U.S. Read the article. SInce they are now classified as "information services", MSO's and DSL SP's may now do this in the U.S., if they wish. Only the risk of bad PR and competitive pressure will prevent them from doing so. | |
| | druber
join:2000-04-11
Marlborough, MA | Re: Not illegal in U.S. You're right, but I think if any ISP(s) start doing this in a signficant way, Congress will get involved quickly. | |
| | | spookypuff66
join:2003-11-10
Silverthorne, CO | Re: Not illegal in U.S. Couldn't the VoIP service providers go into a stealth mode with their IP traffic, or degrade any carrier using Narus. | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by PDXPLT :SInce they are now classified as "information services", MSO's and DSL SP's may now do this in the U.S., if they wish. No, they cannot. The FCC recently busted an ISP for blocking Vonage.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Not illegal in U.S. said by pnh102 :No, they cannot. The FCC recently busted an ISP for blocking Vonage. Go read the Order on the FCC website. It wasn't a "fine"; it was a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury. the press coverage really blew this one.
The FCC never ruled that what they were doing was illegal. In fact, I don't think it is. But you had here a little company doing something Powell didn't like. So he bullied them into making them stop.
This worked against a little mom 'n pop outfit with limited resources. But they won't be able to stop a Comcast or a Verizon or an SBC with these tactics. | |
| rizwan602
join:2004-03-20
Gilbert, AZ
·Cox HSI
| the internet Commerce has caused the internet to become $#!t. People's self interests have just hurt things very badly. I remember a time, not so long ago, I could get online, read news, email and maybe buy something without popped up, scanned, littered with web site ads.
And now attacking working infrastructures in the interest of money... its just depressing.
Its still works but not sure for how long..?! | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | They should be fined... Any incumbant who does it should be fined (which has happened »www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3487466 ). It is illegal to use monopoly position to influence competition.
This just shows the clear need for muni deployment. Neutral ground in which any provider can contract to deliver services. That won't happen when companies like Verizon take billions in taxpayer dollars for deployment but don't have to follow any rules.
If they want the money, the franchises, the easements...they should have to follow basic rules. They don't get free land for their money tree.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Randomness would be the key... If ISPs plan on doing something that does in some way affect external VoIP... it is going to have to be random. Flat out blocking an external VoIP brings too much publicity. Randomness makes it harder to "prove" an ISP is actually doing something. So... you pick up the phone and make a call... it's kinda laggy, etc. You hang up, the next call is fine. Every X calls, the call cuts out at some point in the middle of the call which is also randomly determined.
The more random it is... the more frustrated the user will be but would be clueless to their ISP actively sabotaging their VoIP packets and the more likely they are to discontinue the external VoIP server. | |
| JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| The Sky is Falling,the Sky is Falling! This is not going to happen in the US, might happen in countries like Costa Rica and Mexico where you have practically government provided phone service. If any big carrier like Verizon,TW,SBC or Comcast would do something like this Congress would be all over it. Customers would protest with their dollars and just switch providers. The bad press would be horrendous. Granted there is no law saying you can't do that but Vonage has shown that if you can prove that someone is blocking your service the FCC will show that carrier that back of the hand in a heartbeat. Not worth the marketing nightmare that this would bring on any company foolish enough to block voip service.
That being said still think stand alone voip providers will not be around in 3-5 years. My reasoning, none have enough financial footing to withstand upcoming battles with RBOCs and cable companies. | |
| | jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| Re: The Sky is Falling,the Sky is Falling! ISPs routinely block services (other than VoIP) and the FCC doesn't do anything about it.
Port 25 blocking is a case in point. Most ISPs now block port 25 in an attempt to require you to use their mail servers. Never mind that you paid for internet access and they are selling partial internet access. If you purchase email services from someone other than your ISP, the ISP can block that service with impunity.
VoIP is not really any different.
ISPs should be prohibited from such practices, but they are big enough to get the laws they want. | |
| | | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Re: The Sky is Falling,the Sky is Falling! I think your characterization of port 25 blocking is a bit skewed. Port 25 blocking is the easiest and perhaps most effective means to reduce spam coming out of an ISP's network. Without access to port 25 an infected drone computer cannot act as an SMTP relay nor can an infected drone computer directly connect to external SMTP servers attempting to deliver mail. This is a perfectly valid reason for blocking port 25. They aren't blocking port 25 because they fear customers buying emails services outside their network or to somehow bolster their own email services. If you want port 25, then get a commercial ISP. The overwhelming majority of people who have an ISP that blocks port 25 don't have any need to use port 25. | |
| | | | jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| Re: The Sky is Falling,the Sky is Falling! Except that people do really need access to SMTP servers.
Mobile computer users who connect to multiple ISPs (work/home) must continually reconfigure their email clients when ISPs block port 25.
There are a lot of people who have laptops and connect at multiple sites.
Paying double or triple the cost to get the ISP to stop blocking port 25 is hardly reasonable.
The point is that there seems to be very few if any legal constraints on ISPs. They can do what they want.
You find blocking VoIP to be bad. It denies people from using the provider of their choice. I find port 25 blocking to be equally bad -- for the same reason. It denies me access to services I have paid for. | |
| | | | | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Re: The Sky is Falling,the Sky is Falling! said by jpark :Except that people do really need access to SMTP servers. Sure... I never said any different. I merely took issue with your characterization that ISPs do it because of some desire to force them to use specific email servers.
said by jpark :Mobile computer users who connect to multiple ISPs (work/home) must continually reconfigure their email clients when ISPs block port 25. There are a lot of people who have laptops and connect at multiple sites. That's the price paid for mobile computing. ISPs aren't obligated to make your life easy. I spend nearly half my time traveling... and I have my own "email services" through my web host. My local ISP blocks port 25. When at home I use my ISP's port 25... when on the road, I use webmail... no complaining from me.
said by jpark :Paying double or triple the cost to get the ISP to stop blocking port 25 is hardly reasonable. That's because you don't NEED port 25... you WANT port 25.
said by jpark :The point is that there seems to be very few if any legal constraints on ISPs. They can do what they want. That may be your point... but again, your characterization of port 25 blocking, I believe, is skewed.
said by jpark :You find blocking VoIP to be bad. It denies people from using the provider of their choice. I find port 25 blocking to be equally bad -- for the same reason. It denies me access to services I have paid for. Really? Where did I say I thought blocking VoIP to be bad? Please don't put words into my mouth I haven't said... YET; I do agree blocking VoIP is bad. LOL
There is a HUGE difference though. Blocking port 25 is an honest and genuine attempt by an ISP to limit spam, which is a HUGE drain on the resources of the ISP and internet as a whole. There is no hidden agenda by the ISP to deprive people of external commercial email services.
Blocking an external VoIP is an obvious and deliberate attempt to deprive someone of the choice of an external commercial service. While some "claim" it is because of the bandwidth it eats... that's just a copout. You don't see ISPs blocking access to online gaming, or blocking access to FTP sites offering multi-gigabyte ISO files for Linux distros.
When weighed, the need to limit spam and protect the ISP's network, port 25 blocking makes sense. | |
| 
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA | pay up, youse guys Dis is a nice VoIP you gots here. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Maybe youse should buy our insurance.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun | |
| | phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA | Re: pay up, youse guys We'd hate for you to have a little....."accident" | |
| 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Just Dandy I'll just switch my ISP if I start having trouble with VoIP service, Skype, or anything remotely similar.
Oh wait, I don't have a choice where I live. That's a shame.
Even if I had a "choice", something tells me my "choices" will be similar to my "choice" of gas stations. Gas prices seem to be within 3% at all the stations around here. $2.78 or $2.72 with 10 gallons of fuel saves me a whopping $0.60.
Look out soda machine, here I come! Here's to competition! | |
| | 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs:
| Re: Just Dandy You sir, are hilarious. See, I had already saved that much cash at the pump and went to the pop machine. Too bad that after reading your post, you made me spit most of it out all over the keyboard.
Way to go, now I have to buy another tank of gas just to afford a replacement soda. | |
|
losing battle
| Net VOIP There is always a way to stop this practice... as more and more VOIP phone are 'net-to-net' if these traffic streams are interrupted, you might cause your service provider, be it telco or cableco to lose you as a customer as well, if it can be proven that they are using 'dirty tricks' to charge you more, then they lose you as a customer and it hurts them.. | |
|
ohwaitandsee
@67.98.x.x
| Dumb move I cannot wait for the 1st lawsuit against an ISP that uses technology to degrade VOIP.
Vonage customer on ISP "managing" VOIP traffic:
911 Call
Customer: Yes m_ inf_nt _s cho_kin_ and bl__ding
911 Operator: Ma'a_ __ease sp__k up I cann_t unde____
Customer: Help !! M_ inf_nt _s cho_kin_ and bl__ding
911 Operator: Ple_se calm down
Customer: Help !! Yo_ _uckin_ _unt my baby is ____ing
911 Operator: Oh yes m__m I a sending over SWA_ team now to 3_ Walla___ Way Synd__, Austr____
Funreal Director: (Grabs a shovel)
Customer (after mouring): Yes I would like to speak to your top attoreny... | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Dumb move said by ohwaitandsee :
I cannot wait for the 1st lawsuit against an ISP that uses technology to degrade VOIP.
Vonage customer on ISP "managing" VOIP traffic:
911 Call
Customer: Yes m_ inf_nt _s cho_kin_ and bl__ding
911 Operator: Ma'a_ __ease sp__k up I cann_t unde____
Customer: Help !! M_ inf_nt _s cho_kin_ and bl__ding
911 Operator: Ple_se calm down
Customer: Help !! Yo_ _uckin_ _unt my baby is ____ing
911 Operator: Oh yes m__m I a sending over SWA_ team now to 3_ Walla___ Way Synd__, Austr____
Funreal Director: (Grabs a shovel)
Customer (after mouring): Yes I would like to speak to your top attoreny...
Sir, please take a bow! Ladies and gentlemen, the above message was brought to us by none other than Mr. Mike Tyson!!! | |
| radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Hmm - how will this work with 911 access? I think any ISP using Narus' tech may be in for a surprise if someone tries to call 911 on their VoIP line, now that the FCC has made it mandatory, and finds that they can't communicate. I can definitely see a successful lawsuit or two against the ISP at least, and possibly Narus for providing the technology. Just imagine, little Timmy might not have been burned to a cinder if Comcast hadn't screwed with their VoIP connection to Vonage.
The bottom line is, the more VoIP becomes entrenched as an alternate technology to POTS, the more stunts like this will become legally dangerous - at least in the US.
It would actually be better for ISP's to simply block outright than damage the service - unless they are planning on tracking the calls, and making sure calls to emergency services aren't degraded.
The worst part is, if ISP's would offer the same service, at the same price, I would probably switch just to have the support. The problem is that they want to charge twice as much for half the service. | |
| djlimon
Premium
join:2004-02-23
Montebello, CA
| dun dun dun There are easy work arounds for such blockade..i.e. VPN's, encryptions. Unless they block Carrier IP's all together...but then you can use other methods to go around it. VoIP is a big enough threat yet...plus if you use a CLEC for you access, the LEC can not block nothing! | |
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Woo hoo!! I filed for and was awarded a patent for this idea two years ago -- now all I have to do is sit on it for 5 years until it's in wide use, then I can come forward and demand royalties ex post facto. | |
| |
towerguy
@clallampud.net | Yup they'll fubar it I hope they do better for my WISP business.
I find alot of people sign up for bb just to get VOIP
Just to get away from QWEST ....
Love & bullets | |
| | | |
|
|
·