Cingular cell phone service - NEWS: Michael Robertson on VoIP wars and Net Neutrality

Author

NEWS: Michael Robertson on VoIP wars and Net Neutrality

John Navas

2007-02-02, 10:33 pm

<http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/...r /> eutrality/>

....

We took the opportunity to catch up with Robertson his latest
snapshot of the VoIP industry. Gizmo scored a coup last year when
Nokia bundled it with the N80 Internet Edition - its mass market
Wi-Fi phone. Robertson hinted at more deals to come.

"We've been working for Nokia very closely for a year, on
all kinds of things from usability to NAT traversal - all making it
easy to set up and use," he told us.

Robertson had nothing but praise for Nokia for fighting the carriers'
refusal to include Wi-Fi on devices they sell. Most famously, Nokia's
Blackberry clone the E61 was denuded of WLAN at Cingular's request,
when it became the E62.

"Where the majority of telco-related companies are figuring out ways
to lock users in, Nokia is moving in the opposite direction," he
says.

If there's a silver lining, he hopes, in that it might raise
awareness of SIM-less phones.

"The idea of unlocked phones, where you swap out one GSM SIM and
replace it with another, hasn't really been in the consciousness or
reported in the press. But you're starting to see changes with that.

The problem was that all the major US retail chains, such as BestBuy,
Circuit City or Radio Shack, had each done an exclusive deal with one
vendors, which dictated what they could and couldn't sell.

How was he finding it deal with telcos, we wondered? A true VoIP
service still needed to be able to terminate at a POTS line.

"There's reasonable competition," he told us. "But you see a lot of
sneakiness - you agree the tarriffs and then when you get the bill 45
days later there are all these extra telecomm charges. It's like your
cellular bill!"

"If you're not watching it like a hawk, lots of imaginary charges pop
up, and the rates change all the time. There is competition but you
have to be very diligent," he said.

One Net Neutrality, Robertson joins with the engineer's consensus
to leave well alone. Which is a little surprising for a VoIP
provider.

"I just see it as a natural struggle for dominance/profit in the free
market. If you're Wal-Mart, you can go to manufacturers and jam them
like crazy: it's all about dominance. So on the Internet a DSL
provider goes 'I have these DSL lines', and a Google says 'I have all
these people using my search engine'. This whole network neutrality
debate is about sides of the debate getting the best government
protection for their businesses."

And the scares are overwrought, he reckons.

"I can't see any scenario where a provider would black any services
or meaningfully degrade them because we know what happens to walled
gardens on the internet - they get driven out of the market."

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-02, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> "I can't see any scenario where a provider would black any services
> or meaningfully degrade them because we know what happens to walled
> gardens on the internet - *they get driven out of the market."*

They get sued in court for blocking sites.

John Navas

2007-02-02, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
< nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in
<AGPwh.24293$yC5.15673@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>They get sued in court for blocking sites.

Under what law (exact statute you have in mind)?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-02, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
> < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in
> <AGPwh.24293$yC5.15673@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>
> Under what law (exact statute you have in mind)?

The same one the FCC has in mind when they fine the ISPs.

Mark McIntyre

2007-02-03, 10:33 am

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:03:10 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless ,
decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>The same one the FCC has in mind when they fine the ISPs.

Which one /exactly/? Definite its applicable to this scenario?
And it applies how exactly, in Europe?

--
Mark McIntyre

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-03, 10:33 pm

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-03, 10:33 pm

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:03:10 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which one /exactly/? Definite its applicable to this scenario?
> And it applies how exactly, in Europe?

No dateline here, but you could use Goggle for some key words.

[quote]
The FCC has spanked an ISP for blocking VOIP calls so that the ISP’s
subscribers were SOL. Addressing the SNAFU, the FCC indicated that an ISP
blocking its users from accessing VOIP services is FUBAR. (How’s that for
MAU? [Maximum Acronym Usage])

Seriously, the decision this week by the FCC involving North Carolina ISP
Madison River Communication, and their blocking of VOIP services to their
users, lead to a nolo contendre plea by Madison River, along with a $15,000
file. Nolo contendre, which essentially means “no contest”, is considered
to be a plea of neither “guilty” or “not guilty”, and in one of Aunty’s
favourite definitions, is defined as meaning “I didn’t do it, and I’ll
never do it again.”

Madison River, which operates four telephone companies servicing rural
areas of Georgia, Alabama, Illinois, and North Carolina, had been blocking
the port typically used by VOIP services so that no VOIP data was able to
get through - hmmm, I wonder why?

Said Chris Murray, Director of Government Affairs for VOIP provider Vonage,
of a customer of a subsidiary of Madison River, “They gave no notice [to
the customer]. [His Vonage service] had been working and one day he woke up
and it didn’t work.”

FCC Chairman Michael Powell said that the FCC “saw a problem, and we acted
swiftly to ensure that Internet voice service remains a viable option for
consumers,“ adding that the industry “must adhere to certain consumer
protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation.”
[/quote]

Jeff Liebermann

2007-02-03, 10:33 pm

decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> hath wroth:

>Seriously, the decision this week by the FCC involving North Carolina ISP
>Madison River Communication, and their blocking of VOIP services to their
>users, lead to a nolo contendre plea by Madison River, along with a $15,000
>file. Nolo contendre, which essentially means no contest, is considered
>to be a plea of neither guilty or not guilty, and in one of Aunty’s
>favourite definitions, is defined as meaning I didn’t do it, and I’ll
>never do it again.

Wrong. There were no charges, only an investigation fishing for
suitable charges. Madison River Comm agreed to a consent decree
without offering any plea. There were no rule violations cited,
violations, or notice of apparent liability presented by the FCC.
There wasn't even a complaint. It was strictly an investigation which
was subsequently terminated by the consent decree and a payoff.
Basically, Madison River Comm paid the FCC $15K to get off their back.
The Consent Decree:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...DA-05-543A2.pdf>
4. To avoid the expenditure of additional resources that
would be required to further litigate the issues raised in the
Investigation, and in consideration for the termination of the
Investigation in accordance with the terms of this Consent
Decree, Madison River agrees to make a voluntary payment to the
United States Treasury, without further protest or recourse to a
trial de novo, in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000.00)

The FCC order terminating the investigation:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...DA-05-543A1.pdf>

Subsequent posturing by Chairman Powell:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...OC-257175A1.pdf>

Since it was NOT an enforcement action, it is not listed on the FCC
Enforcement Burro actions:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/>

Note that this was almost 2 years ago.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-04, 4:33 am

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> There were no charges, only an investigation fishing for
> suitable charges. Madison River Comm agreed to a consent decree
> without offering any plea. There were no rule violations cited,
> violations, or notice of apparent liability presented by the FCC.
> There wasn't even a complaint.

So someone coughed up $15,00 when they did no wrong, never were charged
with a violation, never had a ruling against them. What if they didn't?

> The FCC order terminating the investigation:
> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...DA-05-543A1.pdf>

They were paid off and the dogs were called off

> Subsequent posturing by Chairman Powell:
> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...OC-257175A1.pdf>

No doubt.

> Since it was NOT an enforcement action, it is not listed on the FCC
> Enforcement Burro actions:
> <http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/>

It never got that far.

Jeff Liebermann

2007-02-04, 4:33 am

decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>
>So someone coughed up $15,00 when they did no wrong, never were charged
>with a violation, never had a ruling against them. What if they didn't?

I would have done the same thing. A small ISP such as Madison River
Comm does not have the financial resources or business case to
navigate a major judicial ordeal such as demonstrating whether the FCC
has oversight over telecommunications companies offering selective
transit services. One horde contends that the FCC does, under the
must carry rule it imposes on cable providers and because transit
protection under the common carrier principle requires that the
transit carrier does not touch the content. Another horde claims the
FCC does not, because there literally is no specific law, rule, or
ruling that even suggests such a principle.

Madison River Comm knew of the issues, which have been around since
about 2003, and prematurely decided to ignore the obvious implications
and plod ahead by offering VoIP services, but also blocking access to
other VoIP services. My impression (guess) is that they screwed up
the IP port setup on their router and the blocking was mostly
accidental. Dunno for sure.

Sensing the possibility of finally deciding the matter, the FCC
blundered ahead with an "investigation", also known as a fishing
expedition. Madison River Comm wisely decided that they were not in
the business of settling regulatory conflictd and supporting the legal
establishment. They wiggled out of the mess as best they could. The
$15,000 was effectively a fine for fatally injuring the pride of the
dissapointed FCC attorneys in their inability to get front page
attention, political appointments, and future employment by the large
corporations lining both sides of the issues. Much larger settlements
have been paid to avoid a plague of attorneys.

The issue is far from being settled. AT&T was allowed to buy
BellSouth only after promising a fabulous 2 years of net neutrality
before imposeing selective internet services on their paying
customers.
<http://www.marketingvox.com/archive...ited-time-only/>

A few days ago, the FCC Commissars were grilled by a partial senate
committee specifically on their position on net neutrality.
<http://www.cbronline.com/article_ne...8B-4929A3AEB467>
Note the polarization by political party. Worse, many factions have
added their own agendas to the net neutrality issue, thus expanding
both the issues, as well as furthur polarizing those involved. This
is going to take some congressional action to settle the issue, which
no doubt will include these private agendas to muddle the basic
principles.

>
>They were paid off and the dogs were called off
>
>
>No doubt.
>
>
>It never got that far.

Net Neutrality references:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Netwo...
n_the_US>
<http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Mark McIntyre

2007-02-04, 7:33 am

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:40:00 -0600, in alt.internet.wireless ,
decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>It doesn't. The FCC only overseas the United States and possessions.

If you'd replied to teh original question properly instead of with a
oneliner, you'd not now be having this annoying conversation. The
right answer to JN's question was probably
- in the US, see FCC vs Foobar Inc. Outside the US, I can't comment.

--
Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre

2007-02-04, 7:33 am

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:21:38 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless ,
decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote:

>So someone coughed up $15,00 when they did no wrong, never were charged
>with a violation, never had a ruling against them. What if they didn't?

*sigh*.

This happens all the time. Work out the cost of defending yourself
against the suit, viable or not, and then decide if its easier to pay
a small fine and walk away from the incident.

Big companies use this all the time in trademark and other disputes
against smaller competitors. The little guy just cant afford to pay.

Take the case of a local school near me in the UK. They have a uniform
policy which a pupil has violated gratuitously. Her parents are now
suing the school for discrimination (she's muslim and wants to wear
the full veil) and violation of her human rights by forcing her to
stick to policy. The school simply can't afford 500K to fight thecase,
so they'll probably have to concede, even though they're legally in
the right.
--
Mark McIntyre

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-04, 3:33 pm

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Note that this was almost 2 years ago.

[snip]
Mar 21, 2006 - LAS VEGAS, Nev. at TelecomNext show.

Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said that his agency has the
authority to police any so-called net neutrality violations, both in the
voice and video arenas.
[/snip]

Am curious about what he is saying.

Jeff Liebermann

2007-02-04, 10:33 pm

decaturtxcowboy < nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>[snip]
>Mar 21, 2006 - LAS VEGAS, Nev. at TelecomNext show.
>
>Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said that his agency has the
>authority to police any so-called net neutrality violations, both in the
>voice and video arenas.
>[/snip]

>Am curious about what he is saying.

Ask the head of any regulatory agency and you'll find that expansion
of powers is all they think about. Of course he'll claim full
authority to regulate just about everything in sight.

That was also before AT&T got to Keven Martin somehow. See:
<http://www.cbronline.com/article_ne...8B-4929A3AEB467>
and note how he first stalled on voting on the AT&T BellSouth merger.
When he was finally was forced to confront the issue (and his own
previous position statements), he crafted an interesting line:
On the day the deal was approved, December 29, Martin released
a statement to the Senate committee saying that some of the
negotiated conditions were "discriminatory and run contrary
to commission policy and precedent."
which rather looks like a 180 degree position change. What he's
saying is that he supports net neutrality but won't enforce it. He
also claims that in the absense of wide spread abuse, there's no need
for additional regulation. Kinda sounds like he claims authority,
but plans to do absolutely nothing.

In his prepared statement to the Senate Committee which was suppose to
address the issue, he managed to expound about everything except net
neutrality, which somehow has morphed into some kind of consumer
protection issue.
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...OC-270192A1.pdf>

In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are lining up on the big
ISP's side, while the Democrats are lining up on the side of net
neutrality. It's amazing what money and power will buy these days.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-04, 10:33 pm

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> In his [FCC Chairman Kevin Martin] prepared statement to the Senate Committee which was suppose to
> address the issue, he managed to expound about everything except net
> neutrality, which somehow has morphed into some kind of consumer
> protection issue.

While the so called net neutrality war was along the lines of tiered
service, i.e. if you are not a big player or don't buy into one, then you
get second rate passage on the backbone, the Madison River case was about
blocked VoIP traffic which competed against their long distance rate plans.

With all the about-face remarks and posturing on both sides of the fence,
its almost impossible to keep track and provide links on just who said what
and when.

The most salient point that concerns me is bandwidth-intensive peer-to-peer
applications such as BitTorrent that can cripple my WISP networks.
Fortunately the FCC has a point in their four-part statement about Net
Neutrality.

"3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices *that
do not harm the network."*

To me that says:

1. I can block any activity that consumes excessive bandwidth; may it be by
a port, IP, or URL basis.

2. I can put data transfer limits on the subscribers; may it be real time,
daily, or monthly (as annotated in a user agreement).

3. I can prohibit subscribers from using their own client units; may it be
a too high of gain antenna or a mesh client network using my service for
base access, i.e. using DD-WRT on their radio that they use to connect to me.

John Navas

2007-02-05, 4:33 am

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:03:10 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
< nope_none_@nowayspam
.com> wrote in
<ibRwh.40639$Gr2.21698@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>The same one the FCC has in mind when they fine the ISPs.

I didn't think so, but thanks for the confirmation.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

decaturtxcowboy

2007-02-05, 7:33 am

John Navas wrote:
>
> I didn't think so, but thanks for the confirmation.

No problem, I'm glad that I could confirm your not keeping up with the news.

LinkBot