Google's Net Neutrality Fiasco

[arealpissedgoy]

I've never been a fan of old tired suits that own and manage AT&T as if it were a small third world country.

Tired old suits who manage monopolies eventually find it's more profitable to pay for protective legislation than it is to pay for innovative research. This is more of the same.

If it weren't for their "merger" with SWB they'd be where they belong. Bankrupt and out of business.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from atticus:

Your comprehension needs a lot of work. Private and public are antonyms. Re-read what I wrote w.r.t. prioritized traffic.

As I've stated, the FCC would regulate them into bankruptcy. Why would they drop VOIP traffic in the futures if they're not doing it today? Beyond the FCC argument.

Save your breath. You're regurgitating the same hippie manifesto.

Apparently you have not paid much attention to the news in the VoIP space during 2005 and 2006. Comcast and other cable/phone carriers were dropping all the traffic for Vonage and other VoIP carriers; while at the same time Comcast offered a competing digital phone VoIP service. Keep in mind that Vonage and other VoIP startups sued a number of cable and phone companies to stop this behavior. My comprehension does not need a lot of work; the carriers have already attempted this type of anti-competitive behavior and lost in court. The FCC did not step into this situation to regulate it; they pretty much ignored the issue at the time. Now the carriers are spending millions to lobby Congress to change the law and eliminate Net Neutrality. If passed in Congress (unlikely) this would allow the carriers to have a free hand to snuff out the competition..... they tried it already.

While the carriers are free to implement prioritization (QoS) on private traffic from corporations with signed agreements going over their networks; Frame Relay, MPLS, etc. .,... They can not drop public internet traffic based on destination or type of packets. The peering and other agreements state that all public internet traffic must be treated in a neutral manner.

This is not the "hippie manifesto"; it is a question of aligning the carrier business practices with the design intent of the public internet. Cable and Bell Phone carriers have long histories of being anti-competitive monopolies; the internet community should not allow them to extend their business practices to abuse the intent of the internet in order to reap improper "green-mail" profits.

- Greg

 

[atticus]

Comcast? Be serious. Please outline ONE grievance related to ANY backbone provider dropping a competitor's traffic as an anti-competitive act.

 

[gwb-trading]

Let me simply post the links to all the articles about Internet Service provides such as Cable and Phone companies blocking VoIP traffic. A simply Google search demonstrates a nearly endless list of articles from 2005/2006.

Comcast Accused of Blocking VoIP
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/03/02/139241.shtml

Trouble on the line
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1747343,00.html
""I contacted the ISP and was told it did not support third party VoIP," explains Peckler. "Vonage ran a test. It seems the ISP was blocking the cable modem when the Vonage adapter went into use. I ran a test of my own. I ran pingplotter for 10 minutes: no blockage, then I picked up my Vonage phone and placed a call: immediately there was a 100% blockage on the cable modem. This was a continuous loss as long as the phone was used."

Vonage Complaining Of VoIP 'Blocking'
http://www.networkcomputing.com/channels/networkinfrastructure/60400413

FCC Fines N.Car. Provider $15K For Blocking Vonage
http://www.networkcomputing.com/channels/networkinfrastructure/60405195

FCC Fines Madison River Telecom for
Blocking VoIP Traffic
– But Serious Questions Remain Regarding Scope
of FCC’s VoIP Enforcement Authority –
http://www.wcsr.com/resources/pdfs/telecomm030705.pdf

....endless list .....

If you perform the search, you can see that the list of companies blocking VoIP service included everything from small rural LECs to large Bell Carriers (including AT&T) to Cable companies. The FCC did finally demand that they stop doing this in 2006 and did fine a number of small carriers while not fining the larger ones. The FCC ruling stated that the Internet interconnect agreements required the service providers to adhere to the Net Neutrality principles in the peering contracts. Now the Phone and Cable companies are lobbying in Washington with millions of dollars to get Net Neutrality (one of the founding principles of the Internet) overturned.

 

[MustPlayOptions]

Quote from virgin:

This is just Google's self-interest
Sooner or later, pay-for-traffic will be introduced

I have cable internet access and I already pay for my traffic. Google has nothing to do with it and is not using their service - I am.

 

[atticus]

Quote from gwb-trading:

If you perform the search, you can see that the list of companies blocking VoIP service included everything from small rural LECs to large Bell Carriers (including AT&T)

I see no public record of any backbone provider blocking VOIP traffic. Where's the proof?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from atticus:

I see no public record of any backbone provider blocking VOIP traffic. Where's the proof?

Hmmm... well, the links above are circumstantial evidence. You know what they say - where's there's smoke there's fire.

Surely you don't think that because formal charges have yet to be laid, it means that this never happens?

Isn't an FCC fine proof enough??

 

[atticus]

Quote from traderNik:

Hmmm... well, the links above are circumstantial evidence. You know what they say - where's there's smoke there's fire.

Surely you don't think that because formal charges have yet to be laid, it means that this never happens?

Isn't an FCC fine proof enough??

I see an FCC fine for Madison River... no mention of any RBOCs. :duh:

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from atticus:

I see no public record of any backbone provider blocking VOIP traffic. Where's the proof?

All the backbone providers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, QWest, etc.) have divisions that provide local internet service as an ISP also.

From a technology stand-point it makes much more sense to block access to VoIP service providers at a edge point using ACLs, traffic shaping, etc. then within the core of your network in the backbone. Therefore all the backbone providers block the traffic at the local ISP level rather then in the core. Note that all of these companies provide local phone service, so to them shutting down service from alternative local VoIP carriers in an anti-competitive manner makes good business sense.

Your feedback regarding "show me a backbone provider blocking VoIP traffic" is a standard mis-direction argument from carriers. The truth is that all the backbone providers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, QWest) had their local divisions block VoIP traffic at the local ISP level rather then in the core., because from a scaling perspective it is hard to mark and block packets in the core & still get performance. All of these carriers had the FCC take action against them in March 2006 banning them from this practice. MCI and Sprint both had local ISP business units in North Carolina that were impacted by this order to stop dropping VoIP traffic stating that the practice was anti-competitive and went against the signed peering agreements for the public Internet.

I would urge you to do a simply Google search on "Blocking VoIP traffic" to get a complete list of 1 million plus articles, legal documents, and regulatory orders about carriers that implemented this practice in 2005 & 2006 until they were hit with FCC regulatory orders and lawsuits. You will find plenty of "public records" and "proof".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Blocking+VoIP+traffic


- Greg

 

[atticus]

Quote from gwb-trading:

All the backbone providers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, QWest, etc.) have divisions that provide local internet service as an ISP also.

From a technology stand-point it makes much more sense to block access to VoIP service providers at a edge point using ACLs, traffic shaping, etc. then within the core of your network in the backbone. Therefore all the backbone providers block the traffic at the local ISP level rather then in the core. Note that all of these companies provide local phone service, so to them shutting down service from alternative local VoIP carriers in an anti-competitive manner makes good business sense.

Your feedback regarding "show me a backbone provider blocking VoIP traffic" is a standard mis-direction argument from carriers. The truth is that all the backbone providers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, QWest) had their local divisions block VoIP traffic at the local ISP level rather then in the core., because from a scaling perspective it is hard to mark and block packets in the core & still get performance. All of these carriers had the FCC take action against them in March 2006 banning them from this practice. MCI and Sprint both had local ISP business units in North Carolina that were impacted by this order to stop dropping VoIP traffic stating that the practice was anti-competitive and went against the signed peering agreements for the public Internet.

I would urge you to do a simply Google search on "Blocking VoIP traffic" to get a complete list of 1 million plus articles, legal documents, and regulatory orders about carriers that implemented this practice in 2005 & 2006 until they were hit with FCC regulatory orders and lawsuits. You will find plenty of "public records" and "proof".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Blocking+VoIP+traffic


- Greg

By your own admission you cannot cite one case of an RBOC blocking VOIP traffic. Burden of proof sucks, eh?