On previous forums on this site, I have warned that telcos like your infamous BT would not continue to allow competitive voice traffic to be routed across their expensive new IP networks. It now appears that the rot has started - and, suprisingly, in Canada.

Shaw Communications, a Canadian telco, is demanding that Vonage customers who use their network for VoIP traffic via a legitimate - and paid for - broadband connection now be prepared to pay a $10.00 surcharge to offset their own loss of voice traffic. The implication is that if Vonage customers don't pay, their voice packets will be carried with a far lower quality of service - which can lead to choppy and generally poor connections. See the full article from a Canadian web site below.

From http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2006/07/c4352.html


Quote:

Internet phone service company Vonage Canada warns that cable and phone    companies could restrict "network neutrality" by limiting Canadians'    freedom of choice on the Internet; requests CRTC investigate    "anti-competitive" action by Shaw    MISSISSAUGA, ON, March 7 /CNW/ - Vonage Canada today stepped up its efforts to ensure fair and competitive telephone service for Canadians, by disclosing its request to the Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to investigate Shaw Communications' "thinly veiled VoIP tax" to determine if Shaw is unfairly driving up competitor's prices and forcing Western Canadians to pay more for phone service.    Shaw recommends to its high-speed Internet customers that they pay an additional $10 charge if they use a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service provider such as Vonage Canada. Shaw claims its "quality of service enhancement" fee, which it does not charge to its own Internet phone customers, is necessary to ensure independent VoIP service is not disrupted or degraded.    "Shaw's VoIP tax is an unfair attempt to drive up the price of competing VoIP services to protect its own high-priced service," said Joe Parent, vice president of marketing, Vonage Canada. "Shaw's actions are also part of a bigger issue of network neutrality and who controls how Canadians use their Internet service. Vonage Canada wants to ensure that the monopoly telephone and cable Internet service providers don't restrict what services, applications or content Canadians can access. Canadians demand and deserve freedom of choice."    In its submission to the CRTC, Vonage described the VoIP tax as a possible "red herring" because Shaw had refused to provide a technical explanation for how its enhancement works or why it is necessary.    "Shaw has built a world-class network which Vonage customers use everyday with confidence and satisfaction," said Parent. "Recommending that its customers pay extra if they don't use Shaw's Internet phone service is unfair. Vonage Canada had little choice but to request that the CRTC determine the validity and fairness of Shaw's fee structure."    In its CRTC submission, Vonage Canada said: "Because Vonage competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear. This will result in less innovation, less choice and higher prices for Canadian consumers in the long run."    "If the type of action represented by Shaw's (enhancement) service is not seriously investigated and addressed by the Commission, there will be a heightened risk of a duopoly in local voice (phone) services," that will unduly favour the phone and cable companies who provide the Internet access.    "In the absence of credible, complete information, there is good reason to believe (Shaw's) service offering is not an enhancement to Shaw's       high-speed Internet service but rather is an anti-competitive measure aimed at either increasing the perceived cost, or damaging the perceived reliability, of the services of independent Internet telephone service providers when compared to Shaw's higher-priced phone service."

So I wonder how long it will be before BT 'demand' that VoIP users who choose not to use their own service pay a "Voice Packet Quality" surcharge. More to the point, I wonder how the useless and toothless OFCOM would react if this issue were presented to them? I dread to think........ :-/

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 4:49am:

So I wonder how long it will be before BT 'demand' that VoIP users who choose not to use their own service pay a "Voice Packet Quality" surcharge. More to the point, I wonder how the useless and toothless OFCOM would react if this issue were presented to them? I dread to think........ :-/

A question for the Ofcom meetings on 15/16 March? Good Luck there NGM.

Interesting. I hadn't realised that Vonage was at the cutting-edge of cheap VoIP provision, without significant other competitors.

Ofcom will have to decide how network charges will be applied, as there will have to be some to compensate for the solid infrastructure costs. Whether this will be applied to line rental (or deemed to be already inclusive), wholesale charge on other intermediate suppliers, or other means, will be a very interesting question that perhaps could have been addressed at any time in the last 20 years.

ADSL customers already pay line rental to BT, then pay again for their ADSL service. Most people now also have a limited quota of data transfer a month. Surely after all that, they should be able to use it as they want? If someone wants to use up their paltry 3GB/month from BT Broadband to make VoIP calls, why should they have to pay even for the the privilege?

jrawle wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 3:56pm:

...why should they have to pay even for the the privilege?

Because I believe that a past senior director of BT is quoted as saying that they would charge whatever the market would stand.
And here in the UK we stand for pretty much anything, when we are not on our backs rolling over and accepting it - present company excepted.

Quote from J Rawle:


Quote:

ADSL customers already pay line rental to BT, then pay again for their ADSL service. Most people now also have a limited quota of data transfer a month. Surely after all that, they should be able to use it as they want? If someone wants to use up their paltry 3GB/month from BT Broadband to make VoIP calls, why should they have to pay even for the the privilege?

My sentiment entirely! If I pay a fair market price for a broadband connection, why should I now pay extra to compensate (insert telco) for the loss of their (usually obscenely expensive) voice traffic?  >:(

mikeinnc wrote on Mar 10^th, 2006 at 8:56pm:

My sentiment entirely! If I pay a fair market price for a broadband connection, why should I now pay extra to compensate (insert telco) for the loss of their (usually obscenely expensive) voice traffic?  >:(

Although there is obviously more data with VoIP, it would be similar to ISPs charging extra if a subscriber wants to use an e-mail service from another provider via its connection.

However, such a "quality of service enhancement" fee would be at home in today's UK telecommunications industry.

I'm not so sure this is going to happen here in the UK, because there is such a huge range of broadband suppliers. Good 'ol market forces and all.

But I'm sure we are going to see charging by data transfered in the long run. It's the fair way to go I guess.

PeDaSp wrote on Mar 14^th, 2006 at 7:54pm:

I'm not so sure this is going to happen here in the UK, because there is such a huge range of broadband suppliers. Good 'ol market forces and all.

A year or two ago you could have said the same thing about month data transfer limits. Now one is hard pressed to find an unlimited service.


Quote:

But I'm sure we are going to see charging by data transfered in the long run. It's the fair way to go I guess.

We already have charging by data transferred, except that, as is the way nowadays, you pay for up to so much data with most providers. Say £15 a month for 10GB. Most months you will use less than that, so you are paying for GBs you don't use. The same thing goes for mobile phones with "inclusive" minutes - if you don't use all the month's minutes, you still pay for them and just lose them. We won't see charges such as 1.5p per 10MB - that might be the same as £15 for 10GB, but it's obvious which will be more profitable for the providers!

Nothing wrong in profit for the providers! It's capitalism. That profit pays our pensions (the majority of shares are owned by pension and insurance funds); and another huge chunk goes in tax. Then there is all the VAT, National Insurance, PAYE, Business Rates, Fuel Tax, Insurance Tax profitable companies generate.

Marx didn't invent the internet.

What's important is that there is massive competition - which there is. Just look long at the long list of broadband suppliers in the UK.

If "by the KB" charging can show a proift - and it takes market share because that's what the consumer wants - then we will see it.

If "by the KB" charging can show a proift - and it takes market share because that's what the consumer wants - then we will see it.

Some very good points about profitable companies, and our pensions.

However, companies don't always increase market share because they implement what the consumer wants.  They implement what they can profit from, and what they think the consumer will pay without too much fuss.  Look at 0870!!  Consumers definitely don't want that!!

Shiggaddi wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 1:28pm:

However, companies don't always increase market share because they implement what the consumer wants.  They implement what they can profit from, and what they think the consumer will pay without too much fuss.  Look at 0870!!  Consumers definitely don't want that!!

Today's UK telecommunications industry seems to be built on these foundations of allowing telcos to push up prices whilst creating the illusion that they are coming down.

PeDaSp wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 6:04pm:

What's important is that there is massive competition - which there is. Just look long at the long list of broadband suppliers in the UK. If "by the KB" charging can show a proift - and it takes market share because that's what the consumer wants - then we will see it.

There may be a long list, but most of them are virtual ISPs. And the lot of them, virtual or not, tend to all offer the same products with the same features, fixed at roughly the same price.

There is not true competition because, how many cables are connected to your house? Answer: one, owned by BT. (Some people may have a second option in the form of cable, but a particular cable company has a monopoly in an area but the newly merged NTL/Telewest has a monopoly there too.

What the consumer wants?! How many consumers want to be charged by the KB for internet? Virtually none, but they will have no choice because that's all that will be offered. The majority of people won't know the difference, won't understand what's going on, and will just be ripped off by the ISPs in the same way they are by the telecoms companies.

PeDaSp wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 6:04pm:

What's important is that there is massive competition - which there is. Just look long at the long list of broadband suppliers in the UK.

Competition and choice seem to be trumpeted as the be all and end all!

Look at the competition of providers of non-geographical phone numbers (0845, 0870 etc). Who's paying for that 'choice'; us, the consumer! By keeping calls at the fixed (almost pre-competition rates) there is enough revenue for these companies to offer their services for free to the NGN service providers.


jrawle wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 3:21pm:

There may be a long list, but most of them are virtual ISPs. And the lot of them, virtual or not, tend to all offer the same products with the same features, fixed at roughly the same price.

Which means that at the end of the day, virtual telcos are just a branding and marketing exercise which we are paying extra for!


jrawle wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 3:21pm:

There is not true competition because, how many cables are connected to your house? Answer: one, owned by BT. (Some people may have a second option in the form of cable, but a particular cable company has a monopoly in an area but the newly merged NTL/Telewest has a monopoly there too.

Exactly. And how many different cable companies did there used to be in different areas of the country and how many are there now? They have been swallowed up by Telewest and NTL and now these two are one.

What's more, the virtual ones are now experiencing the same fate. TalkTalk has bought Onetel and Tele2 and 're-branded' them TalkTalk. Just what has this got to do with operating a 'better' telecommunications service?  ::)


jrawle wrote on Mar 18^th, 2006 at 3:21pm:

What the consumer wants?! How many consumers want to be charged by the KB for internet? Virtually none, but they will have no choice because that's all that will be offered. The majority of people won't know the difference, won't understand what's going on, and will just be ripped off by the ISPs in the same way they are by the telecoms companies.

And the few who are savvy enough to understand; well they're in the minority, so it doesn't matter.