|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP
Seems to me that said company "BroadVoice?" was attempting to prevent the use of VoIP in an effort to prevent competition with it's current phone customers. It's kind of a tough issue to deal with, if you think about it. There are two sides to the issue: 1.) FCC doesn't want companies preventing other companies from competing. 2.) On the other hand, how do you tell a company what services it can or can't block? The fact is, the company was preventing it's users from using technology offered by said company's competitors. There are parts of this country from which you don't have "other isp" options. You mentioned something about ports. I highly doubt that BroadVoice used ports to deny the service. I'm sure the blocks were at least a little bit more complicated than just blocking out ports. It's a very interesting issue. For once, I tend to agree with the FCC on this one. Regards, Tim Rainier
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70081/us-slaps-fine-on-company-blocking-voip.html I don't speak for BroadVoice, but this seams to be to be stupid. Why should the government get involved in ISPs blocking ports? If customers don't like it, go to a new provider, what country is this?? Frankly, I don't see the point, any provider that requires 5060 or any other port to offer VoIP services deserves to be shutoff by networks blocking those ports. It is just to easy to talk to CPE on any port. ><> Nathan Stratton BroadVoice, Inc. nathan at robotics.net Talk IS Cheap http://www.robotics.net http://www.broadvoice.com
|