[81737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Tue Jun 28 16:51:35 2005
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org, 'Fergie ' <fergdawg@netzero.net>(Paul Ferguson)
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:51:08 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
<p>I commented independently concerning the same issue just a little while =
ago, at:</p><p>http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=3D21457409=
</p><p>re: </p><p> <br />"The question may now become if consumer=
can order Vonage, 8x8, ... VoIP service, riding the cable Internet service=
."</p><p>---begin snip: </p><p>Agreed, that is a major question. =
There is nothing that binds the MSOs=0D
to continue carrying the parasitic services you cited except for good=0D
will, and throughout the country the measure of that good will varies=0D
by region, state and down to the individual locale and household. If=0D
recent history is any guide, the incumbents will do whatever they can=0D
get away with and still profit from within the shortest possible=0D
horizon. It would be difficult for the MSOs to cut the Vonages off at=0D
the knees at this time, but will become easier if and/or when the=0D
Telcos, too, find themselves no longer required to fill the role of=0D
common carriers. Then both the MSOs and the ILECs can give the=0D
parasites the boot, and customers will have nowhere else to go that=0D
permits them. To do so before that time, however, could potentially be=0D
a PR nightmare for the MSOs, IMO, and this could outweigh any potential=0D
interim financial gains, so I think that they will wait for the ILECs=0D
to catch up with them so they could share some of the negative light.=0D
</p><p>---end snip<br /><br />Frank A. Coluccio=0D
<br />DTI Consulting Inc.=0D
<br />212-587-8150 Office=0D
<br />347-526-6788 Mobile <br /><br /><strong>On Tue Jun 28 20:06 , "F=
ergie (Paul Ferguson)" sent:<br /><br /></strong><blockquote style=3D=
"border-left: 2px solid rgb(245, 245, 245); margin-left: 5px; margin-right:=
0px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px;"><br />=0D
<br />=0D
Jeff Pulver makes a good point in a Forbes article<br />=0D
when he says "I believe it's a matter of when, not<br />=0D
if" providers start blocking VoIP traffic from<br />=0D
competitors across their own infrastructure, especially<br />=0D
on the heels of the Brand X SCOTUS ruling.<br />=0D
<br />=0D
"If I'm a service provider offering my own voice<br />=0D
over broadband offering, and I've got the ability<br />=0D
to block my competition, why not?"<br />=0D
<br />=0D
<a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"parse.pl?redirect=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.co=
m%2Ftechnology%2F2005%2F06%2F28%2Fvoip-cable-blocked-cx_de_0628voip.html">h=
ttp://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/28/voip-cable-blocked-cx_de_0628voi=
p.html</a><br />=0D
<br />=0D
- ferg<br />=0D
<br />=0D
--<br />=0D
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson<br />=0D
Engineering Architecture for the Internet<br />=0D
<a href=3D"javascript:top.opencompose('fergdawg@netzero.net','','','')">fe=
rgdawg@netzero.net</a> or <a href=3D"javascript:top.opencompose('fergdawg@s=
bcglobal.net','','','')">fergdawg@sbcglobal.net</a><br />=0D
ferg's tech blog: <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"parse.pl?redirect=3Dhttp%3A=
%2F%2Ffergdawg.blogspot.com%2F">http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/</a><br />=0D
</blockquote></p><BR>=
