Comments on: Vonage Protests Shaw Third Party VoIP QoS Fee http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/ any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:33:03 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Tek http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-4678 Tek Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:20:35 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/#comment-4678 While I see Vonage's point in protesting this, Shaw doesn't at all require that you pay the $10 fee. In fact, they technically own and maintain the lines that we pay for, so if someone has a digital phone service and they want top quality service, they should pay the $10, or otherwise stick with the more reliable infrastructure i.e. a Telus landline. If I were Shaw I wouldnt try and stifle competition, but hey, Vonage et al ARE using communications infrastructure that Shaw has paid for, so I see their point too! It's as if someone built waterfront condos, and placed a public seawall - you are free to use it of course - but if someone came along and started selling things on the seawall and it got jammed full of people, I'd charge them so that there was a separate path to the vendor! While I see Vonage’s point in protesting this, Shaw doesn’t at all require that you pay the $10 fee. In fact, they technically own and maintain the lines that we pay for, so if someone has a digital phone service and they want top quality service, they should pay the $10, or otherwise stick with the more reliable infrastructure i.e. a Telus landline.

If I were Shaw I wouldnt try and stifle competition, but hey, Vonage et al ARE using communications infrastructure that Shaw has paid for, so I see their point too! It’s as if someone built waterfront condos, and placed a public seawall – you are free to use it of course – but if someone came along and started selling things on the seawall and it got jammed full of people, I’d charge them so that there was a separate path to the vendor!

]]> By: The Clone http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-1278 The Clone Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:57:44 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/#comment-1278 In its submission to the CRTC, Vonage described the QoS surcharge as a possible "red herring" because Shaw had refused to provide a technical explanation for how its enhancement works or why it is necessary. The company went on to say that "Because Vonage competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear." It isn't about discrimination. The software (the same one used to limit the amount of traffic bittorrent uses) is designed to help with the prioritizing of packets -- specifically voice packets used in VoIP service. This service costs Shaw money and therefore it must be passed onto the customer if they wish to use 3rd party carriers for VoIP. It isn't a case of Shaw being anti-competitive. It's a case of Vonage having a shitty service that should do the hardware QoS on the customer's "Vonage Router". Shaw shouldn't be responsible for every 3rd party company's services. Just like with my side business, we shouldn't be responsible because our DID lines don't work in synch with a 3rd party application like AMP (Asterisk Management Portal). Shaw's explanation is pretty clear: http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/ServiceEnhancement.htm In its submission to the CRTC, Vonage described the QoS surcharge as a possible “red herring” because Shaw had refused to provide a technical explanation for how its enhancement works or why it is necessary. The company went on to say that “Because Vonage competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear.”

It isn’t about discrimination. The software (the same one used to limit the amount of traffic bittorrent uses) is designed to help with the prioritizing of packets — specifically voice packets used in VoIP service. This service costs Shaw money and therefore it must be passed onto the customer if they wish to use 3rd party carriers for VoIP. It isn’t a case of Shaw being anti-competitive. It’s a case of Vonage having a shitty service that should do the hardware QoS on the customer’s “Vonage Router”. Shaw shouldn’t be responsible for every 3rd party company’s services. Just like with my side business, we shouldn’t be responsible because our DID lines don’t work in synch with a 3rd party application like AMP (Asterisk Management Portal).

Shaw’s explanation is pretty clear:

http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/ServiceEnhancement.htm

]]> By: mathewingram.com/work http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/comment-page-1/#comment-1271 mathewingram.com/work Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:08:02 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/03/07/vonage-protests-shaw-third-party-voip-qos-fee/#comment-1271 <strong>Get ready - it’s “VOIP tax” time...</strong> Continuing the theme of “network neutrality,” voice-over-Internet provider Vonage has raised the spectre of a “tiered” approach to the Internet in Canada in a filing with the Canadian broadcast regulator - the Canadian Radio-te... Get ready – it’s “VOIP tax” time…

Continuing the theme of “network neutrality,” voice-over-Internet provider Vonage has raised the spectre of a “tiered” approach to the Internet in Canada in a filing with the Canadian broadcast regulator – the Canadian Radio-te…

]]>