The RBOC's next move

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () BOBF FRANKSTON COM>
Date: December 2, 2005 4:42:17 PM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM
Subject: Re: The RBOC's next move
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- 
L () LISTSERV AOL COM>

Given the fears the list is actually very short ... and inaccurate.

=> I think the Vonage blocking was challenged and they backed off  
even if
it wasn't ruled to be illegal.

=> Blocking of port 25 is common but the argument is typically about  
spam
and there are lots of services that route past it. For RCN it's  
unblocked
if you have a static address on the theory that that's less likely to be
spam. This is more about email protocols than blocking as such.

=> I use EVDO on my laptop and it is not blocked at all though there are
some other problems in the putting IP over the cellular network that  
are of
concern. My cell Verizon phone seems to be unblocked but the i730  
itself is
crippled though I'm working at working around it from the edge. Other
carriers may force their users through proxies and other games.

The term of service for EVDO, at least from Cell phones, basically  
say it's
illegal to use them but that's similar to the terms of service from most
ISPs which say that you are not supposed to really use the service for
anything interesting. That is a real concern but attempts to enforce  
rules
like "no webcams" have been wonderful opportunities to highlight how  
stupid
the rules are. We should be concerned with a system that requires  
defying
rules to do anything -- it's an indication of the disruption.

Perhaps such rules should be the basis for a shareholder suit since they
investors are depending upon the rules preserving the old business model
and the lack of enforcement means that the companies are telling the
shareholders one thing and doing something else. Forcing the issue  
would be
very interesting.

=> Running competing ads on the TV side is a separate issue and more  
about
the incest within Tellywood and friendly taking of hostages.

=> VPN blocking -- more often has been an architectural issue than an
explicit block though in the early days it was a problem. Blocking  
VPNs is
not feasible since it is required for so many applications these days.

I can't comment on what is happening outside the US (do I need to remind
readers that Canada is not part of the US?) but my conclusion is that  
it's
remarkable how little blocking there ease. It's harder to say whether  
there
are other games such as dropping packets to thwart streaming.

The real problems are much simpler - limiting the portion of the  
capacity
available.

-----Original Message-----
From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
[mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM] On Behalf Of Sean Donelan
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 15:14
To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM
Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] The RBOC's next move

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Genny Pershing wrote:
> He said she said whatever.  We have been debating open
> networks and open access for years.  And the
> incumbents keep saying golly gee wiz stupid consumers,
> we would never do that.
>
> Canada ISP blocks iTunes
> Madison River blocks Vonage
> Clearwire will block vonage
> Adelphia blocking ports
> Cable companies refusing to run competitive ISP ads
> Cable Internets blocking VPNs
> Verizon EVDO blocking just about everything
> Canadian carrier blocking access to union
>
> Debate intent and words all you want.  But it comes

Noticebly missing are the RBOC ILEC wireline DSL from that list.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/