Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking
Jeff Pulver makes a good point in a Forbes article when he says "I believe it's a matter of when, not if" providers start blocking VoIP traffic from competitors across their own infrastructure, especially on the heels of the Brand X SCOTUS ruling. "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?" http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/28/voip-cable-blocked-cx_de_0628voi... - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
At 02:06 PM 6/28/2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Jeff Pulver makes a good point in a Forbes article when he says "I believe it's a matter of when, not if" providers start blocking VoIP traffic from competitors across their own infrastructure, especially on the heels of the Brand X SCOTUS ruling.
"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?"
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/28/voip-cable-blocked-cx_de_0628voi...
- ferg
Harold Willison, my peer and Director of HSI Transport, Design, and Engineering at Adelphia, explains exactly why that would not be a fantastic idea, in the following article: http://www.ct-magazine.com/archives/ct/0605/0605_internetprotocol.htm -MH W. Mark Herrick, Jr. Director - Data and Network Security - Adelphia Communications 5619 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, CO 80111
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Jeff Pulver makes a good point in a Forbes article when he says "I believe it's a matter of when, not if" providers start blocking VoIP traffic from competitors across their own infrastructure, especially on the heels of the Brand X SCOTUS ruling.
"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?"
Its obvious Mr. Pulver doesn't operate a network. It may be a good policy to generate interest in conferences to hear speakers talk on panels about the potential horrible things. But even a trivil amount of research (or Google if you consider that research) would reveal the answer to his question "Why not?"
When people start to talk about blocking, just say no. It took our politicians in Sweden approx one month to start trying to extend the child porn filtering some large ISPs agreed to implement, to also include trafficking and prostitution advertising. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
When people start to talk about blocking, just say no.
It took our politicians in Sweden approx one month to start trying to extend the child porn filtering some large ISPs agreed to implement, to also include trafficking and prostitution advertising.
you could engage the gov't of panama and the local PTT there (cable & wireless) about their experiences in attempting to filter voip traffic... or rather in forcing ISP's there to filter voip for them, to protect the PTT's revenue stream(s). -Chris
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
participants (6)
-
Aaron Glenn -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Sean Donelan -
W. Mark Herrick, Jr.