I think the only fair way to treat VOIP is for a provider to prioritize their own VOIP packets, not lower the priority of VOIP packets from other providers, or worse, block ports that competitors use for the service. That way if I own a network I can fairly insure QOS for my VOIP customers and give all competitors "best effort" service just like any other data traversing the network. Jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Dana Spiegel; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net; Jim Henry > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: > Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] > > > > I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of > voip over another as a matter of course. How does it serve > any of the stake holders? > > Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very > high, and there is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can > see that priority should be given to emergency calls exchange > '999' and 'x11' in these cases. The unwillingness of verizon > to allow anyone access to the 911 system results in me having > to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local > precinct on its 718.xxx.xxxx number... > > I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given > round-robin priority, such that a user who picks up every > minute and hits redial will soon get through regardless of > who the voip carrier is, remain network neutral. Granted > there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some other > companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed > data streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all. > > Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand > neutrality of providers in the end. But it would be nice to > be a consultant in a position to point a client company to an > ISP and say, these guys are commited to as level a playing > field as servs everyone's interests. EULAs that prohibited > use of wireless technology prevented me from recomending > verizon or cablevision for example. > > What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote > a 'rival' voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not > threaten network capacity. Or worse yet, expressly delaying > or mangling the rival voip packets. This subtle sabotage is > unlikely to do anyone any good. The average consumer is > likely to be driven away from voip, because the issues > involved are too complicated to deal with. With less VOIP > demand, there will not be the increase in bandwidth demand > that might be spured by widespread adoption of voice and > subsequently video over IP. > > In short network non-neurtrality (network hostility) is an > ill-wind that blows no one any good. > > By publicly considering making non-neutrality Standard > Operating Procedure some large polygopolies are tempting > legislation that restricts the way in which all ISPs are able > to do buisness. Outside restrictions on the way one does > buisness never seem to help. If nothing else: Laissez Faire, > laissez aller, laissez passer. By abusing or considering the > abuse of a freedom that they have always had large telcos > jeopardise that very freedom. Surely this cannot be good for > anyone's bottom line? > > > > > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:42:23 -0500 (EST) > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net, Jim Henry > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: > Multichannel News > > -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] > > > > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote: > > > >> And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network > >> Neutrality IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of > >> PRESERVING internet freedom. > >> > >> This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their > >> astroturf organizations. Private individuals have not been > concerned > >> with attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf > organizations have > >> been able to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government > regulation. > >> It is not. The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net > Neutrality > >> are the telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most > >> business BENEFIT from having Net Neutrality. > > Who said? > > > > As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality that > would apply > > to my network. I don't want government to tell me what I > can and what > > I cannot do with my customer's traffic. Yes, most likely, I > will not > > touch any kind of packets, but if I choose to give higher > priority on > > *my* IP network to PilosoftVOIP packets, I should have this choice. > > > > If your suggestion is that "Net Neutrality" should only > apply to ILECs > > and cablecos - oh I'm all for it...But it kind of seems unfair, > > doesn't it? Not being a biggest fan of the incumbents, it does seem > > somewhat silly to hamstring them. > > > > The "right" thing of course would be to reverse the TRO and mandate > > ILECs to provide unmolested layer2 DSL transport to > third-parties. But > > that battle seems to be lost. > > > > Possibly, the only condition when net neutrality makes > (sort of) sense > > is that ILEC would have to choose between providing access to > > competitors like us, or to be bound by net neutrality provisions. > > > > -- > > Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services > > President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601 > > Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow? > Linux: Where do you want to go today? > BSD: Are you guys coming, or what? > > > Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN > www.aresnyc.org. > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release > Date: 3/17/2006 > > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
