[78418] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Thu Mar 3 18:18:01 2005
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:17:29 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050302173945.GB8146@panix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* 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
