[78520] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Network.Security)
Mon Mar 7 09:56:36 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:56:07 -0600
From: "Network.Security" <Network.Security@target.com>
To: "Adi Linden" <adil@adis.on.ca>
Cc: "Robert Blayzor" <rblayzor@inoc.net>, <nanog@nanog.org>,
"Bill Nash" <billn@billn.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Do you also offer premium "80" traffic? Or guaranteed delivery of UDP?
Unbundled services will give the best price, and good service. Maybe we
won't get the service anytime soon, but 2 out of the magical 3 isn't
bad.
bradley.swanson@target.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Adi Linden
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:46 AM
To: Bill Nash
Cc: Robert Blayzor; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP
> If VOIP doesn't run on your network because you've oversold your=20
> capacity, no amount of QoS is going to put the quality back into your
service.
> People will find better ISPs. If you deliberately set QoS to favor=20
> your services over a competitor, whom your customers are also paying=20
> for service, you'll be staring down prosecutors, at some point. It's=20
> anti-competitive behavior, as you're taking deliberate actions to=20
> degrade the service of a competitor, simply because you can.
Let's say I sell a premium VoIP offering for an additional fee on my
network. I apply QoS to deliver my VoIP offering to my customers but as
a result all other VoIP service is literally useless during heavy use
times you'd consider this anti-competitive behavior?
Adi
