[kwlug-disc] OT: Another voip.ms troubleshooting question
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Mon Sep 10 19:16:46 EDT 2012
On 12-09-10 11:29 AM, Jason Locklin wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>> Nope, that's a completely wrong interpretation of uncompetitive advantage.
>> Rogers does not offer an equal playing field across the wire, preferring
>> it's own private traffic over my wire, and in fact deliberately
>> deteriorating internet traffic. No VoIP traffic travelling over its
>> internet service has a prayer of competing on an equal traffic bandwidth
>> or speed footing with it's own private service.
> In what way is Rogers home phone or TV service "prioritized" over VOIP
> or netflicks? Different network, different modem hardware. The fact
> that it's the same physical wire makes no difference. That's like saying
> that Bell "prioritizes" their CTV content because CTV over-the-air is
> delivered at a higher speed than web videos over their 3G network -both
> travel over the same medium after all. Data at different frequencies,
> however, do not interact.
Rogers internet is rate limited and shaped. Their other traffic over
that wire will not be. VoIP travelling over the internet service will be
at a significant disadvantage over their home phone.
Of course that it's the same wire makes a difference. It is the point,
Your example does not apply. They are not the same conduits. May be the
same content, but are different conduits.
> I'm aware of their practice of traffic shaping of, and otherwise messing
> with, p2p data -but that's a much more complex kettle of fish.
But is the point.
> I'm no
> fan of Rogers for various reasons, but your criticism makes a clear
> factual error.
> They should be required to provide neutral passage to all
> data on their Internet connection,
Not 'all data on their Internet connection', all data on the ENTIRE
WIRE. Thus, their home phone acquires an uncompetitive advantage.
> as well as share their physical
> infrastructure with competitor service providers, as it was built on
> public land,
This becomes debatable. 'Public land' is probably a moving target. I
suspect in at least some cases they have paid for the 'right of way',
or, they have 'provided the service' free. As in, laid the wire for 'a
public good'. (No doubt I've got the wrong terms, etc., but I would
expect the overall principle to be substantially correct.)
The requirement to share their infrastructure is also somewhat fuzzy.
The desires for a competitive landscape for the 'public good' is
laudable, the specifics of how, in this case, be it making private
infrastructure accessible to 3rd parties, or some other way, have landed
as you have said. (Goal intent vs. practicable implementation.)
> but these two issues are distinct and should not be
And they haven't been, here.
And they are not distinct issues.
It's about the entire wire.
More information about the kwlug-disc