nanog mailing list archives
Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking
From: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg () netzero net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:06:26 GMT
Jeff Pulver makes a good point in a Forbes article when he says "I believe it's a matter of when, not if" providers start blocking VoIP traffic from competitors across their own infrastructure, especially on the heels of the Brand X SCOTUS ruling. "If I'm a service provider offering my own voice over broadband offering, and I've got the ability to block my competition, why not?" http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/28/voip-cable-blocked-cx_de_0628voip.html - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Current thread:
- Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking W. Mark Herrick, Jr. (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Sean Donelan (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Aaron Glenn (Jun 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Frank Coluccio (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 28)
- Message not available