March 07, 2006

IF they are intentionally using the Ellacoya to gratuitously damage parasitic VoIP packets, then they are cheating. That is similar to port blocking. However, it is quite possible to provide real telephony QoS on a cable network, which should be a real product.

Sometimes Vonage sounds good. Sometimes its quality sucks the big one. Upstream bandwidth in particular tends to congest on cable if nothing is done.

Well Fred... by your definition that "parasitic" VoIP service as provided by Vonage et al.. should be a vastly inferior service... well a rough guess puts my packet latency at less tnan 100ms (I called my cellphone to check)... so far quality is consistantly supurb, not spotty as you might suggest... better than POTS.... using Shaws own bandwidth checker, I get 2800kbps so the 90K my VoIP usses should not be an issue, especially since I'm not BitTorrent downloading the latest rip of Brokeback Mountain at the same time. Using Ellacoya packet UDP/TCP/SSID/IP address or whatever filtering rather than direct port blocking is one in the same in my books... it's a creative way to stifle "competiton", and in Canada it's illegal. With 2800kbps mkeasured bandwith I expect ALL of my packets to be treated equally... and to be unimpeded by artificial blocking techniques in whatever form that may take.... direct port blocking or intelligent UDP or TCP filtering makes no difference to me.

Richard

"Among the questions raised by Vonage is what, exactly, is Shaw doing to adjust customers’ service so that its service is improved and what evidence does Shaw documenting any improvements and why levy a recurring charge when it seems that only a one-time adjustment is required?"

Shaw is using Ellaycoya software to identify the VoIP TCP/UDP packets... same technology they are using to throttle back the BitTorrent bandwidth hogs. Eellacoya will be used to identify VoIP traffic using intelligent packet header sniffing and Ellacoya will instantly throttle back or delay only THOSE foreign VoIP packets to introduce dropouts and packet latency to reduing their "competitors" quality. Instead of direct port blocking they are getting around the "problem" by using packet delaying software.... is there a lot of difference? Pay the $10 tax and your IP address will be exempt from Ellacoya filtering. At 30 to 90k VoIP is not bandwidth intensive so the Voip bandwidth demands on Shaw are not the issue... Ellacoya is simply being used to level the playing for Shaw's own pricy $55-$65 service. Deliberatly using Ellacoya software to reduce a customers service quality may be anti -competitive... maybe even against NAFTA rules... but throw enough money and lawyers at the "problem... who knows?

Shaw started the QoS surcharge a while ago to mask the real reason... that they had been planning to introduce their own VoIP telephony for a while. they "needed' to introduce the surcharge early to deflect any criticism about that might point at their anti-competitive practices.

Port bocking and packet delaying software aere in my opinion one in the same.

Richard

There is no problem here. Let's not panic -- Ed and Ivan want to see the competition fight itself, not them! They've created the imaginary notion of a "two-tier Internet" to cover for their real plans for a "walled garden" of "Internet message unit" services.

Cable telephony is offered in three ways. The old way has proprietary TDM equipment, like Tellabs 2300, which works like a charm but is relatively expensive. The new standard is PacketCable, in which VoIP-encapsulated telephony is still given reserved bandwidth, run through the cable modem network, but isolated from the public Internet. This works almost as well. Millions of lines of PacketCable are giving the Bells fits.

The third way is parasitic VoIP, in which the telephone call is just another Internet application. It works if it works, but can be spotty quality, because by design the TCP/IP protocol suite throws some packets away. So with no prioritization or bandwidth reservation (as in PacketCable), quality isn't as high. That's what Vonage was built around, and thus it's a low-tier service that is not really threatening to the Bells.

Shaw is Doing The Right Thing. It's creating the cable equivalent of an unbundled local loop. (Canada already requires "open access" for cable modem services.) It's letting third party telephone providers have higher quality service, so they can compete more effectively with the incumbents. Yes, this is worth money, so Shaw is taking money for it. Good for them! If people are willing to pay, they should be allowed to.

If Shaw were installing port blockers or other tools to prevent Vonage et al from working as well (or badly) as they do now, that would be a different story. But this a new and improved service, not a degradation of an existing one.