Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#37219 by gbickel1
Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:15 pm
I've been an Ooma customer since July, and am very happy with my service. This month is my "break even" month, where I have officialy saved enough on NOT paying a monthly bill to pay for my OOma hardware. My open question is this: SInce I am a Time Warner Roadrunner customer, my Ooma service directly competes with Time Warner Digital Phone. Could there be a point where Time Warner looses enough Digital Phone customers to Ooma, for them to start blocking Ooma packets somehow? If not Time Warner, I'm sure that Comcast offers a digital phone package that competes with Ooma. The question is, can the cable operators start blocking Ooma packets?
#37221 by murphy
Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:25 pm
Not unless they want to endure some really hefty fines from the FCC.
The only way they can "fight back" is to reduce their extremely high rates.
#37226 by gbickel1
Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:44 pm
murphy wrote:Not unless they want to endure some really hefty fines from the FCC.
The only way they can "fight back" is to reduce their extremely high rates.


Good to know. I hoped that there was a some regulation in place to prevent this.
#37251 by allo
Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:35 pm
gbickel1 wrote:
murphy wrote:Not unless they want to endure some really hefty fines from the FCC.
The only way they can "fight back" is to reduce their extremely high rates.


Good to know. I hoped that there was a some regulation in place to prevent this.


There are regulations! among others: the Anti-Trust (monopoly) Act !(i believe) : against those who try to stifle competition!
Not only hefty fines (in the millions!), but damages as well to the "injured" party .... ooma in this case!
They can even get their license revoked... and therefore be out of business altogether!
Last edited by allo on Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
#37256 by tommies
Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:21 pm
I must say I have the least knowledge of this matter, but be on guard of the issue of Net neutrality that currently in the hand of Congress. If FCC rule is overturned, we, the consumers, expect to pay more for voip, ooma or non-ooma.

Edited. Thanks Doug
It must be a brain cramp on my part.
Last edited by tommies on Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#37303 by doug
Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:40 pm
tommies wrote:I must say I have the least knowledge of this matter, but be on guard of the issue of Net neutrality that currently in the hand of Congress. If it becomes reality, we, the consumers, expect to pay more for voip, ooma or non-ooma.


I think you have that backwards. Net neutrality is what gives the FCC the teeth to ensure an ISP can NOT block traffic, including for example a competing VOIP service. Without penalties for providing equal access, an ISP could make it so that quality suffers thereby making the playing field not level and they could raise their own VOIP prices. Net neutrality makes it official an ISP can't pull that kind of stunt. That leads to a level playing field and in theory, better pricing from free market pressures.

Comcast already had their wrist slapped once for how they "managed" bit torrent traffic.
#37704 by gman
Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:19 pm
I don't know if Comcast is fighting back, but from complaints posted all over the web it appears they are not honoring QOS flags that Ooma, Vonage or any other VOIP providers add to their packets. So any VOIP other than Comcast's own is subject to quality problems at any time. This isn't blocking but it makes degradation at sometime very likely.
#37735 by allo
Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:58 pm
gman wrote:I don't know if Comcast is fighting back, but from complaints posted all over the web it appears they are not honoring QOS flags that Ooma, Vonage or any other VOIP providers add to their packets. So any VOIP other than Comcast's own is subject to quality problems at any time. This isn't blocking but it makes degradation at sometime very likely.


I am no expert , but the QoS has to do with the amount of bandwidth/speed in Kb allocated to VOIP at the local level I believe (customer)...
I don't think QoS has anything to do with packets once they leave the customer (outbound/inbound ... in the main stream) ... or does it?... and if they do, that is managing traffic to their advantage and to slow down competition : which is against FCC rules.
#38111 by gman
Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:19 pm
QOS covers a variety of techniques including queuing, traffic shaping and assigning packet priority ( like DiffServ ). QOS ending at your router assumes there is never any network congestion. Comcast's response to the January FCC letter claims their phone service is carried on different channels than other ip traffic. This means any other voip provider traffic is lumped in with all other ip traffic which is all on Best Effort or Priority Best Effort priority in their new network management scheme.
#38158 by hteinlin
Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:17 pm
There is nothing wrong with what Comcast does by putting their voice network on a different channel.
They are providing a service on their own infrastructure.

If Ooma wants to negotiate and set aside bandwidth for Ooma, then they need to contract with the various ISP's for access or provide ISP services to households.

Ooma was designed to work for the internet in general. If comcast does anything specifically to block or reduce speeds for specific ports Ooma runs on yes then they are violating laws. Otherwise they have not done anything illegal.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests