nanog mailing list archives
Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP
From: Robert Blayzor <rblayzor () inoc net>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:01:48 -0500
Bill Nash wrote:
At the root of it, it's deliberate anti-competitive behavior, and that's what the fine is for. I'm generally fine to have the government stay out of the internet as much as possible, but this move was the correct one, as it was on behalf of the end consumer. It's not the choice of port blocking that matters, it's the intent.
Wait a minute, since when is the Internet service I provide regulated by ANY entity? It's not, therefore I can run the network any way I see fit. If customers don't like it, they can choose another ISP; if they can't choose another ISP, not my problem, I'm not a regulated entity, you get my service or none at all. While I don't run my network with that attitude, I certainlly have the right to. Lets take port blocking out of this. Lets say I'm an ISP that offers digital phone service to my customers. Of course I'm going to provide my customers with the best voice service possible, which means QoS for my voice customers. If Vonages service is basically unsable on my network due to oversubscription/latency/packetloss on some legs/remotes am I obligated now to provide voice quality? No, I'm not. My voice works because my customers pay me for that, is that anti-competitive? That's intentional as well... Nobody says I have to carry Vonage traffic so long as I do not violate any SLA's with the customers I provide service for. Regardless if it's not competitive, if you want to really get technical and bring in regulation and law like the telcos do, Vonage should be paying ISP's to transport and terminate their voice customers traffic. Seems that Vonage wants to have their cake and eat it to when it comes to regulation... -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com) PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/ Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5 0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0 Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.
Current thread:
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP, (continued)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Bill Nash (Mar 07)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Rachael Treu (Mar 07)
- Message not available
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 05)
- Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP Adam Rothschild (Mar 05)