Forced to be kind with ISPs to use VoIP
-
-
Here’s the final score at the Congress: 23 to 8. Last week, the Republican beat the Democrats and their “Net neutrality” amendment, even though it gained the support of companies like Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft or Yahoo.
What were they talking about? About a telecommunications legislation that mainly deals with whether or not broadband providers should be free to design their network as they want.
For John Dvorak, who writes for PCMag and also on his blog, “this means is that your ISP will be able to block any competing website and hold up any website for ransom. For example, your DSL provider will legally be able to slow down Vonage to make it unworkable, leaving their own VoIP service as the only option.”
Oh, by the way, Vodafone seems to have crossed the line. eWeek reported that the mobile phone operator has introduced a new content filter intended to prevent youngsters from viewing illicit web site but could be used to block VoIP communications.
Apr 11, 2006 | By Nuno
6 comments
-
-
-
- Stay in sync'
- Full content
- Content tagged VoIP
-
-
-
I think we have more to worry about from Congressional regulation than we do from the telcos/ telcoms. At the end of the day, there is no mechanism to stop Congress from legislating the internet to death but the market will eliminate a company that blocks or limits service.
I think it is a little unfair to claim that ISPs will be holding VoiPs ransom or doing any other such nonsense. The consumer would not stand for such an unfair practice and neither would the FCC, with or without a mandate from Congress. Besides, what good is regulation for a problem that does not exist?
Well, I’m not sure blocking illicit content constitutes crossing any sort of line, with regard to this issue. Nobody doubts that the technology is available to block certain Internet sites. The question is whether companies will use that technology, and whether it is in their best interest to do so.
The truth is, there has been no effort to block any Internet sites. Why would consumers put up with that sort of behavior? The effort to block illicit sites appeals to parents. An effort to block Amazon would appeal to nobody. Until I see evidence that this is happening, I am uninterested in having government dictate my Internet experience.
First, a technology is a tool. It’s not good or bad in essence. The peer-to-peer transfer platforms weren’t made for hackers. Just as emails and spammers.
Second, about distributing priority in heavy consuming bandwidth applications. That should the right of ISP to choose this, in respect of their customers. The Congress shouldn’t interfere in this decision.
Couldn’t agree more, lessgov. No one is arguing that the technology to block, limit or degrade service doesn’t exist. The argument for me is: will the telcos use it? And since the vast majority of consumers have the choice of more than 2 ISPs, it seems unlikely (to understate) in such a competitive environment. That said, I think the last thing we want to do is welcome Congress in to regulate an industry that has done so well without regulation.
With the Internet being such a major part of Americans’ daily lives, I completely agree with you guys when you point out that any shenanigans by ISPs will lead to major consumer backlash. If we see the problem that so many are warning us about - and we haven’t yet - customers will just switch en masse to a provider that does things by the book. And we’re all capable of doing that without Congressional help!