Let me know if you want to place a wager on the Cellar Calendar.

Something like "Jan. 1 2008: major carrier interference is top-5 issue in VOIP industry". If it doesn't come true you have to hit the Paypal jar for $10. If it does, the Cellar tag line is changed to "tw was once again proven correct" for a week.

Who would win if a major carrier tried it and got slapped down not by the market but by Congress?

Me...see the last sentence I wrote about how the consumer gets reamed... :-)

Does this sound like a company that is an IP 'data highway' - or a company that wants control of more 'higher level' services by lobbying (buying) politicans? If UT is correct, then consumers would simply quit Verizon and move to (the only) other broadband provider - Comcast - because Verizon wants more control (profits from) higher level Internet functions.

Verizon and Comcast got independence from legal requirements: opening their networks to CLEC - smaller competitors (ie COVAD). With a duopoloy on broadband services, these companies now want control of content. IP is only data packet traffic. Higher level functions from TCP and above are also known as content. Some examples of content are www, movies on demand, RealAudio, and VoIP. Note how the lowly IP provider now wants control and profits from those who provide higher level services such as Google.

Maybe this is only a trial ballon. But it another puzzle piece along with 'packet skewing'. Little pieces that would explain a larger, overall intent to dominate the business we currently call 'The Internet'.

From Washington Post of 7 Feb 2006: BTW, there is nothing technically complex in these posts from UT and myself. It's layman's language. If difficult for the lurker, then the lurker is only first learning about what was well understood, expected, and published in newspapers five years ago. This is a contraversy that probably caused Powell Jr to resign as FCC Commissioner when even another Republican commissioner did not agree.

It's tempting to think of Verizon and Comcast as the only players if those are the only ones you can think of.

Firstly, most people do not chose between those two, and in certain locations - more all the time - there are more than two choices. For example, Philadelphia is developing its idea of providing 1MB wi-fi to everyone in the city limits. Their partner: Earthlink.

Comcast wasn't a player at all ten years ago, and Verizon was only a baby bell 10 years ago. Today Comcast is hardly a player, capable of providing VOIP to only 16 million homes. You can bet that, in ten years, the rules will have changed completely once again. And if broadband players can automatically get an extra $30 out of providing a clear 30k or so (all that's required to devote to voice) of their 1Meg to devote to voice, there are going to be a lot more broadband players.

More and more people have the capability to reach their office via VPN and include voice over that connection. Are the providers going to mess with those packets? Think those people won't figure it out?

Can nobody call customer service when they have a problem? Will Comcast lie when people ask why they can't get Skype? What will Skype customer service say?

Here's a relevant article.

what the fuck does VOIP stand for? ~freakin nerd lingo....

Voice Over IP (basically telephone over the internet)

Many, if not most places, only have one broadband choice. In a major metropolitan area, Philadelphia, there are two choices. Furthermore, most other options still must use either the cable company or telephone company facilities. The other option that costs significantly more is satellite.

Earthlink is the exception - mesh networking. However the point here is about choices. The point is about how large IP providers can and probably are manipulating the market to self serving and competitively unfair advantages.

Let's take a look at that Earthlink example. Verizon and Comcast are so fearful of this mesh network as to make it illegal in any other Philadelphia town. By PA law (both Verizon and Comcast bought large numbers of PA Congressmen), only Philadelphia can install that Earthlink mesh network. A Philadelphia exemption is only because Philly had already started to install it.

Comcast and Verizon may be so manipulating the market (without consumer 'free market' influence) as to even get an Earthlink mesh network banned in all other PA venues. Is that a big IP provider with no undue influence on the market? Of course not. Just another example of why regulation of big IP providers may be (and most unfortunately) necessary. UT's Earthlink example only again demonstrates how big IP providers may be rigging the market at the expense of consumers - as that above Washington Post article and 'packet skewing' also suggests.

With packet skewing, who would know it was happening? Skype? No. They could only suspect. Is the consumer denied Skype service? Obviously not. My posts never one even suggested it. The IEEE Spectrum article did not even suggest that. The consumer could get Skype. And with packet skewing, then Skype service would be lower quality. With intermittent application of packet skewing, then Skype would only appear to be a cheap and inferior verson of VoIP. And again, even UT could not tell if Comcast was or was not using packet skewing software. For all we know, Comcast is using the packet skewing software they have purchased. Why would they not be using it? No reason to not use it. It's legal.

Bottom line point: 'packet skewing' to selectively undermine quality of Skype VoIP service is legal. FCC said it is legal for both cable and phone (DSL and fiber) companies to 'packet skew' competitor's packets.

There are already some private networks out there who are limited in scope but have a private internet. The problem with a completely unregulated, unrestricted, and unhampered internet is.....who is going to pay for it. Who will buy the huge switches and pay for the fiber optic cables to be pulled everywhere? And even if you did have the resources to build such a network, the government of America may attempt to claim jurisdiction over you because your cables are within the borders of America. Other nations might try the same thing.

The way I see it, the only way this could really be done is to launch about 36 communication sats owned by a consortium or other such group that would not give records to any government, and would not even keep records and would allow completely free access to their internet. This would allow people all over the world to communicate, but even this wouldn't solve everything.

If I were to transmit to a sattelite from within Vietnam, the cops would show up instantly to cart me off.

This is a sticky issue. I don't see how the government of America, or any other nation, can claim to have any legal jurisdiction over the current, or any future internets since they are private property.

The best solution might be to build a consortium of large businesses who refuse to comply with government rules or regulations on their private networks, and who won't track our every move and who would sign a contract agreeing to such.

One thing is certain, whenever there is an opportunity to make a profit, someone steps up to the plate. I'd certainly pay to be on such a network and I'm sure many others would too.

This is a quick way for Verizon and these other businesses to lose money. They are stupid in thinking they've got control of the internet. The internet is fluid and constantly changing.

tw: After Skype hooks up a simple packet sniffer and evaluates the arrival times of different packet numbers during a call, and compares that data to the packets they themselves have generated from the remote location, they will have all the compelling data they need before lunchtime.

radar: you don't need an entire private internet to circumvent this situation. Anyone can order a private circuit to just about any ISP!! In fact single channel ISDN would be plenty for two-way voice. Now how many choices do you have? Maybe hundreds!!

With an extended WiFi setup you could take that circuit yourself and act as ISP for your entire neighborhood. You could even take the packets on Skype's ports and direct them over a small private network, while directing all other traffic to Verizon or whomever else. The routing would be intense to work out, but the equipment would be less than a grand. And you could make money too!

Thank you for making that point, UT. TW's statement didn't sound right to me, but this is not my area of expertise.

But how do the ISPs hook up? Don't they have to go through a wire-owner at some point? ISPs don't generally own the copper or fiber. And they certainly don't own all the wire that your packets go through to get to their destination.

I have to say it again...isn't the customer *already* paying for the services they find on the Internet? I pay to connect, not for what comes to me via that connection. Isn't what is being discussed here a little bit akin to SBC demanding a cut of a contract I am awarded because I made the deal over the phone line for which I am already paying?