nanog mailing list archives
Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking
From: Aaron Glenn <aaron.glenn () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:01:25 -0700
On 6/28/05, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) <fergdawg () netzero net> wrote:
"If I'm a service provider offering my own voice over broadband offering, and I've got the ability to block my competition, why not?"
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Vonage can't give their packets a high priority over a service providers network; only the service provider can do that. If anything, the cards are stacked against Vonage and its peers: they can only realistically compete on price and customer service. An MSO or RBOC can easily provide superior service over their own network without having to block anyone. Now if its MSO/RBOC vs. Vonage, et. al on price, who do you think will (eventually) win? aaron.glenn
Current thread:
- Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking W. Mark Herrick, Jr. (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Sean Donelan (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Aaron Glenn (Jun 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Frank Coluccio (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 28)
- Message not available