Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>]

* tls () netbsd org (Thor Lancelot Simon) [Thu 03 Mar 2005, 23:01 CET]:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:46:05AM -0600, Church, Chuck wrote:
> > Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that
> > you're cutting off people's access to 911.  That alone has got to have
> > some tough legal ramifications.  I can tell you that if my ISP started
> > blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney... 
> Why?  Do you have a binding legal agreement with your ISP that requires
> them to pass all traffic?  Do you really think you can make a
> persuasive case that you have an implicit agreement to that effect?

Why, yes, an agreement for Internet access.  The end-to-end principle is
considered an integral part of the design (and power) of the Internet.

Kindergarten ISPs exist but I do not buy from them.  And the verbiage in
the contract is that the ISP doesn't guarantee access but will do its
best to provide and keep offering such.


> The 911 issue is a tremendous red herring.  In fact, it's more of a
> red halibut, or perhaps a red whale.  Vonage fought tooth-and-nail

... and then you spend two entire pages derailing the debate towards
emergency services.  Thanks!

Any provider intentionally causing deterioration of network performance
towards a competitor's service offering is engaging in anticompetitive
behaviour.  This may be merely bad or legally suicidal.


        -- Niels.

-- 
                              The idle mind is the devil's playground