interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [IP] The RBOC's next move

  • From: David Farber <>
  • To:
  • Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:14:46 -0500

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@BOBF.FRANKSTON.COM>
Date: December 2, 2005 4:42:17 PM EST
Subject: Re: The RBOC's next move
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

Given the fears the list is actually very short ... and inaccurate.

=> I think the Vonage blocking was challenged and they backed off even if
it wasn't ruled to be illegal.

=> Blocking of port 25 is common but the argument is typically about spam
and there are lots of services that route past it. For RCN it's unblocked
if you have a static address on the theory that that's less likely to be
spam. This is more about email protocols than blocking as such.

=> I use EVDO on my laptop and it is not blocked at all though there are
some other problems in the putting IP over the cellular network that are of
concern. My cell Verizon phone seems to be unblocked but the i730 itself is
crippled though I'm working at working around it from the edge. Other
carriers may force their users through proxies and other games.

The term of service for EVDO, at least from Cell phones, basically say it's
illegal to use them but that's similar to the terms of service from most
ISPs which say that you are not supposed to really use the service for
anything interesting. That is a real concern but attempts to enforce rules
like &quot;no webcams&quot; have been wonderful opportunities to highlight how stupid
the rules are. We should be concerned with a system that requires defying
rules to do anything -- it's an indication of the disruption.

Perhaps such rules should be the basis for a shareholder suit since they
investors are depending upon the rules preserving the old business model
and the lack of enforcement means that the companies are telling the
shareholders one thing and doing something else. Forcing the issue would be
very interesting.

=> Running competing ads on the TV side is a separate issue and more about
the incest within Tellywood and friendly taking of hostages.

=> VPN blocking -- more often has been an architectural issue than an
explicit block though in the early days it was a problem. Blocking VPNs is
not feasible since it is required for so many applications these days.

I can't comment on what is happening outside the US (do I need to remind
readers that Canada is not part of the US?) but my conclusion is that it's
remarkable how little blocking there ease. It's harder to say whether there
are other games such as dropping packets to thwart streaming.

The real problems are much simpler - limiting the portion of the capacity

-----Original Message-----
From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
[mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Sean Donelan
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 15:14
Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] The RBOC's next move

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Genny Pershing wrote:
He said she said whatever.  We have been debating open
networks and open access for years.  And the
incumbents keep saying golly gee wiz stupid consumers,
we would never do that.

Canada ISP blocks iTunes
Madison River blocks Vonage
Clearwire will block vonage
Adelphia blocking ports
Cable companies refusing to run competitive ISP ads
Cable Internets blocking VPNs
Verizon EVDO blocking just about everything
Canadian carrier blocking access to union

Debate intent and words all you want. But it comes

Noticebly missing are the RBOC ILEC wireline DSL from that list.

------------------------------------- You are subscribed as To manage your subscription, go to

Archives at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC