[81744] 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 17:49:02 2005
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:45:56 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20050628205108.89A15F8BF@sm4app01.siteprotect.com>; from Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com> on Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:51:08PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:51:08PM -0500, Frank Coluccio wrote:
> I commented independently concerning the same issue just a little
> while ago, at:
>
> http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21457409
>
> re:
>
>
> "The question may now become if consumer can order Vonage, 8x8, ...
> VoIP service, riding the cable Internet service."
>
> ---begin snip:
>
> Agreed, that is a major question. There is nothing that binds the MSOs
> to continue carrying the parasitic services you cited except for good
> will,
Parasitic services? Good will?
I believe, Frank, that you and $LOTS_OF_CUSTOMERS_INCLUDING_ME have
differing views of what service it is, exactly that broadband customers
(think) we're paying for.
While few of the consumer broadband providers explicitly say
"unfiltered routeable IP access to 'the Internet'", *none* of them say
"access to websites and we don't guarantee anything else"... at least
not in letters tall enough to make the FTC happy.
Oh... did I imply that broadband carriers might trigger a wash of
consumer complaints to the FTC if they started blocking service the
customers wanted to use without clear advance notice? :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
