harden the f*ck up, atticus!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh6pZQX22CQ (just because u spam every other thread with this)
I clearly pointed out the evidence. If you can or will not look at the Google search results then I can not help you. It is obvious to anyone else reading this thread that a simple Google search demonstrates multiple examples of "RBOC blocking VoIP traffic". Within the first five pages there are multiple references including QWEST and AT&T. I believe I have amply demonstrated to any other party reading this thread absolute proof. I would urge you to open your eyes and read the information. It is not really worth discussing this subject when you will not acknowledge the obvious. For everyone else reading this thread, I would urge you to go to: http://www.SavetheInternet.com/ and follow the links to contact your representatives in Washington and protect your rights by supporting Net Neutrality. - Greg
I did. It's a google link with search parms of "blocking VOIP traffic". No mention of specific carriers, how convenient for you; nor did I find one instance of any blocking accusation against ATT. I took the liberty of adding "ATT" to the search and came up with zero claims that ATT was caught blocking VOIP traffic. Clearwire? Madison River? Yup... no mention of ATT. Of course none of those mentioned control the backbone -- which is the issue at hand. You're a fraud.
"ATT blocking VOIP traffic" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=ATT+blocking+VOIP+traffic&btnG=Search "RBOC blocking VOIP traffic" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=ATT+blocking+VOIP+traffic&btnG=Search There isn't a single link which accuses ATT of blocking VOIP.
I would urge you to read beyond the first page of the 400,000+ links that you receive in these searches. QWEST DSL service blocked all ports expect for basic HTTP service during 2004 and 2005 prior to the FCC ruling in March 2006. This means they were blocking VoIP services which require these ports for SIP, H.323, or MGCP call set-up. After the March 2006 FCC ruling, the QWEST CEO comes out on the 15th and magicly states that he is now for Net Neutrality. Of course, QWest then kicked in over $2M during 2006 to PACs that lobby against Net Neutrality to your reps in Washington. The story about QWEST is found in the first search page of your Google search. The last time I checked QWEST is an RBOC. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1938547,00.asp At this point, I think we can let others evaluate the links and determine the truth. It is not worth spending my time discussing the subject if you will not read the material or face the truth. The next concern should be what happens to your on-line trading when you can only get "fast-lane" access to brokers that pay "green-mail" to these service providers. If your broker does not pay "green-mail" then your high-speed access to your trading account will slow to a crawl..... making it impossible to trade over the Internet. - Greg
I read the Qwest link, but it doesn't specifically mention the DSL port lockup. I agree that's spurious. However, I see no mention of AT&T.
BellSouth is part of AT&T right. BellSouth prior to the merger was a RBOC... correct. BellSouth blocked SMTP, VoIP and other ports in the DSL service in North Carolina during 2004/2005. Port blocking is much easier to implement then degrading the QoS of VoIP packets, but port blocking is far more obvious to the customer. They tried to convince customers that this was for their own protection from the "Internet". They also required you to get local phone service to get a DSL line. SBC and QWEST demonstrated similar behavior until 2006 also. - Greg
Agreed, they're an RBOC, but not part of ATT during the alleged port-block. One final request: Post one link providing information regarding fines or legitimate allegations attributable to an VOIP blocking by an RBOC. The Qwest article doesn't mention a word of this incident you cite.
So which service provider is the guilty party trying to block Voice over IP servicesfrom Vonage Holdings? Not us, said two of the nation's largest telecom service providers, SBC Communications and Verizon Communications. In email messages this week, spokespersons for both SBC and Verizon said their companies aren't the ones responsible for attempts to block Vonage's VoIP service. However, only Verizon responded to an additional question about whether or not the company could or would employ such blocking tactics in the future. In an email reply, a Verizon spokesperson said: "We are on the record in a letter to the FCC stating that we would not deliberately block or impair Vonage's or any other non-affiliated VoIP provider's services over our customer's broadband connections." SBC's reply was: "In response to your question [about the Vonage incident], we can say it is not us." The SBC message added: "we don't have someone able to comment [on the second question] at this time." At the Silicon Flatirons conference earlier this week, Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert was asked a similar question about whether his company blocked Vonage, but did not answer fully, only to state that "we [Qwest] have a commercial contract with Vonage." Brooke Schulz, Vonage's vice president for corporate communications, said this week that Vonage used to have a contract with Qwest for wholesale bandwidth, but no longer does. http://www.voipmonitor.net/2005/02/22/Whos+Blocking+Vonage+SBC+And+Verizon+Say+Its+Not+Them.aspx