US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

Sat Mar 5 02:01:48 UTC 2005

Bill Nash wrote:
> At the root of it, it's deliberate anti-competitive behavior, and that's
> what the fine is for. I'm generally fine to have the government stay out
> of the internet as much as possible, but this move was the correct one,
> as it was on behalf of the end consumer. It's not the choice of port
> blocking that matters, it's the intent.

Wait a minute, since when is the Internet service I provide regulated by
ANY entity?  It's not, therefore I can run the network any way I see
fit.  If customers don't like it, they can choose another ISP; if they
can't choose another ISP, not my problem, I'm not a regulated entity,
you get my service or none at all.

While I don't run my network with that attitude, I certainlly have the
right to.

Lets take port blocking out of this.  Lets say I'm an ISP that offers
digital phone service to my customers.  Of course I'm going to provide
my customers with the best voice service possible, which means QoS for
my voice customers.  If Vonages service is basically unsable on my
network due to oversubscription/latency/packetloss on some legs/remotes
am I obligated now to provide voice quality?  No, I'm not.  My voice
works because my customers pay me for that, is that anti-competitive?
That's intentional as well...

Nobody says I have to carry Vonage traffic so long as I do not violate
any SLA's with the customers I provide service for.  Regardless if it's
not competitive, if you want to really get technical and bring in
regulation and law like the telcos do, Vonage should be paying ISP's to
transport and terminate their voice customers traffic.

Seems that Vonage wants to have their cake and eat it to when it comes
to regulation...

-- 
Robert Blayzor, BOFH
INOC, LLC
rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com)
PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/
Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5  0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0

Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.