[81738] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Tue Jun 28 16:55:52 2005
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:55:21 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20050628.133608.28900.266009@webmail15.lax.untd.com>; from "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net> on Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:35:31PM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:35:31PM +0000, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> > -- "W. Mark Herrick, Jr." <mark.herrick@adelphia.com> 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?"
> >
> > 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
>
> I tend to agree with Mr. Willison. ;-)
Smartalec. :-)
Willison correctly takes both sides of the issue, which, as usual, is
an elephant: how you see it depends on where you stand. I thought, as
you did, Ferg, that he did a good job illuminating what the sides are,
and how to best interact with all of them: Don't block unless you have
to to be secure; work with the providers to nudge their protocols into
the most easily securable form.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
