NEWS: Michael Robertson on VoIP wars and Net Neutrality

<http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/02/robertson_voip_net_neutrality/>

....

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>

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.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
<nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in
<AGPwh.24293$(E-Mail Removed)> :

>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.

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

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
> <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in
> <AGPwh.24293$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>
>> 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.
>
> Under what law (exact statute you have in mind)?


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

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

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
>> <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in
>> <AGPwh.24293$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Under what law (exact statute you have in mind)?
>
>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

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:03:10 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> decaturtxcowboy <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
>>> <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in
>>> <AGPwh.24293$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> Under what law (exact statute you have in mind)?
>> 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?

It doesn't. The FCC only overseas the United States and possessions.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:03:10 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless ,
> decaturtxcowboy <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
>>> <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in
>>> <AGPwh.24293$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> Under what law (exact statute you have in mind)?
>> 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?

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

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_public/attachmatch/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_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A1.pdf>

Subsequent posturing by Chairman Powell:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-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 (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A1.pdf>

They were paid off and the dogs were called off

> Subsequent posturing by Chairman Powell:
> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-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.

decaturtxcowboy <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> hath wroth:

>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?

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/archives/2007/01/02/att-offers-net-neutrality-affordable-broadband-for-limited-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_news.asp?guid=017C23F1-1A86-4516-B88B-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.

>> The FCC order terminating the investigation:
>> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A1.pdf>
>
>They were paid off and the dogs were called off
>
>> Subsequent posturing by Chairman Powell:
>> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-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.

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


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558