Re:Isn't this to be expected? (Score 1)

There is a world of difference between merely prioritizing on-net VoIP traffic (such that third-party VoIP apps are given the same priority as, say, generic http traffic) and actively blocking access to third-party services. I have no objection at all to the former, but have quite significant objections to the latter, especially when providers don't specify that such restrictions exist in their TOS.

(Note that in most PacketCable deployments that I know of, on-net VoIP runs on a separate RF/data channel from general Internet traffic and is *not* just mixed in with general Internet traffic and prioritized to the head of the queue. Some small MSOs who are not using PacketCable and are contracting with third parties like Net2Phone to provide turnkey services may do the latter, though.)

BTW, it apparently isn't even cable companies doing this...it's rural phone companies. I posted the following to BBR earlier:

This is not an issue with companies like Comcast blocking or degrading alternative VoIP providers to get people to use their VoIP; it's apparently rural ILECs trying to keep LD traffic on their PSTN networks so they can continue to rake in access charges. From the [AdvancedIPPipeline] article:

"According to Powell, his understanding is that the blocking is not coming from major service providers, but from rural Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)."

Keep in mind that rural ILECs, unlike RBOCs and the largest independent ILECs (the former GTE side of VZ, Sprint LTD, Frontier Rochester, etc.) pretty much live off USF subsidies and access charges from LD calls, and many (but not all) will do virtually anything in their power to keep from losing their cash cows.

-SC