nanog mailing list archives
Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls () netbsd org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:45:50 -0500
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:54:33PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
I'm curious how you'd feel if your local telephone company started preventing you from calling its competitors. How about if you suddenly
Your local telephone company is a regulated entity. It's required to complete your calls regardless of which other carrier they terminate on. Vonage has fought tooth and nail to *not* be a regulated entity. But now it's turning around and complaining that other non-regulated entities are employing the same freedom from regulation that Vonage enjoys in a way that Vonage finds inconvenient. Meanwhile, Vonage has been pretty much entirely out of service for the entirety of this afternoon, for all subscribers. Something very similar happened yesterday. If Vonage were a regulated telephone carrier, it would be subject to millions of dollars of fines -- essentially, the regulatory regime would force it to give back to its customers the money it will doubtless not give back to them of its own good will (it would be suicidally stupid business practice to give it back unless they ask, after all, and most won't ask). But Vonage has used a complaisant FCC as a stick to beat another non-regulated entity with in order to force it to behave the way Vonage wants. This is all very effective but it does stink to high heaven. We can argue about whether it is best to have telecom regulation or not have telecom regulation, but "exactly as much regulation as Vonage happens to want, where and when Vonage happens to want it" is certainly neither equitable nor good. Thor
Current thread:
- Re: vonage routing issues, (continued)
- Re: vonage routing issues Michael Loftis (Mar 04)
- Re: vonage routing issues Rachael Treu (Mar 04)
- Re: vonage routing issues John Neiberger (Mar 04)
- US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP trainier (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Dominic J. Eidson (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Bill Nash (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Eric A. Hall (Mar 04)
- US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 04)
- RE: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP David Schwartz (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Thor Lancelot Simon (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Adi Linden (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Eric A. Hall (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP John Levine (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Eric A. Hall (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Michael . Dillon (Mar 07)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Bill Nash (Mar 04)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Robert Blayzor (Mar 04)
- RE: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Vivien M. (Mar 05)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Bill Nash (Mar 06)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Adi Linden (Mar 07)