Comcast vs. Vonage

Posts: 409 · Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

Rest assured my money's on no more issues from now on Wink

Posts: 11 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 11

Mvdyk03 wrote:

I can only assume that you haven't read the whole thread?

No, I have... here are snippets from traceroute to Vonage in this thread. The problem is so clear, I cannot believe it has gone on this long and pointed at Comcast... not only that Vonage publicly blamed Comcast.

In each traceroute the path out of Comcast is like 17ms.... once it gets into AT&T then to Global Crossing or Vonage the response goes to crap. Not only that, you can see Vonage manually moving the traffic between Global Crossing, Savvis and AT&T. What is very clear is the AT&T link to Vonage is SMOKED... Vonage is pushing over to Savvis and Global Crossing which also have smoked interconnects with AT&T.... Guys... This is not a Comcast issue.

8 16 ms ggr2-p310.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.65]
9 17 ms att-gw.chi.gblx.net [192.205.32.126]
10 113 ms Vonage-Holdings-Corp-Vonage-Toll-Free-NWRK.ge-2-3-0.403.ar1.NYC

9 17 ms att-gw.chi.gblx.net [192.205.32.126]
10 231 ms Vonage-Holdings-Corp-Vonage-Toll-Free-NWRK.ge-2-3-0.403.ar1.NYC [64.210.19.18]

8 30 ms gbr2-p22.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.5.137]
9 31 ms dcr1-so-3-3-0.Chicago.savvis.net [208.175.10.93]
10 30 ms dcr2-so-5-0-0.Chicago.savvis.net [204.70.192.46]
11 53 ms aer1-ge-4-2.newyork.savvis.net [204.70.193.46]
12 36 ms [204.70.151.162]
13 49 ms [204.70.151.162]
14 * [-] destination address unreachable

8 47 ms 46 ms 32 ms bcs2-so-5-2-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.110]
9 31 ms 31 ms 47 ms aer1-ge-4-2.newyork.savvis.net [204.70.193.46]
10 31 ms 63 ms 46 ms 204.70.151.162
11 203 ms * 32 ms 204.70.151.162
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.

7 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms gbr7-ge30.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.29]
8 18 ms 18 ms 19 ms att-gw.chi.gblx.net [192.205.32.126]
9 * * 70 ms Vonage-Holdings-Corp-Vonage-Toll-Free-NWRK.ge-2-
3-0.403.ar1.NYC1.gblx.net [64.210.19.18]
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * 51 ms 63 ms 216.115.22.200

6 18 ms 20 ms 19 ms tbr2-p012001.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.4.230]
7 18 ms 16 ms 16 ms ggr2-p3120.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.69]
8 17 ms 17 ms 26 ms att-gw.chi.gblx.net [192.205.32.126]
9 * * 49 ms Vonage-Holdings-Corp-Vonage-Toll-Free-NWRK.ge-2-
3-0.403.ar1.NYC1.gblx.net [64.210.19.18]
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 45 ms 45 ms * 216.115.22.200
12 49 ms * 49 ms 216.115.22.200

9 12 ms 14 ms 14 ms ggr2-p310.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.65]
10 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms att-gw.chi.gblx.net [192.205.32.126]
11 * 234 ms * Vonage-Holdings-Corp-Vonage-Toll-Free-NWRK.ge-2-
3-0.403.ar1.NYC1.gblx.net [64.210.19.18]

Posts: 63 · Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject:

Conspiracy or not, I'd like to think two things have been accomplished in recent weeks:

1) A heightened awareness of potential conflicts between those that own the pipes into homes (Baby Bells, cable companies) and those companies that use those pipes to deliver services that eat into the business of those broadband operators. The Bells really only have themselves to blame for this after the stunts they pulled vs. CLECs and DSL ISPs in the late 1990's and early 2000's to create service "disruptions," ultimately "forcing" consumers to abandon those companies in favor of the Bells' DSL offerings. After that, is it any surprise that people would be a bit suspicious of supposed Comcast-related service disruptions that seemed to affect Vonage users in particular?

2) That we are in the very early stages of a tug-of-war between broadband providers and those that offer services on the 'net that consume bandwidth. My view is that this has the potential to become very messy as providers (the Bells so far) ask for surcharges from content providers to "prioritize" their bandwidth, leading to a Balkanization of the internet and lending credence to the practice of subjugating the services of some providers in favor of others. This is a recipe for disaster for consumers. I'd argue that the ultimate bandwidth burden needs to fall on consumers through metered usage. As a somewhat heavy user, I would certainly be adversely affected by this, but what other alternative business model is there? Why would bandwidth usage be any different than gas or electricity consumption?

Hopefully the industry will be thoughtful in how in moves forward and how it deals with content providers. Yet we've seen their actions in the past and for the most part the same management teams are present at these companies, so it will take vigilance by users to spot any lame attempts to disrupt the service of those companies that compete with them over their own pipes.

Posts: 44 · Full Forum Member Joined: Feb 21, 2006 Posts: 44

rdstoll wrote:

Why would bandwidth usage be any different than gas or electricity consumption?

Well, for one the technology to push ever more data through a single SONET fiber is consistantly improving as is the cost of delivering the bandwidth.

The ISPs would like nothing more than for you to accept the usage business model after hooking you on the bandwidth model. This is not really the same kind of issue at all as your example of gasoline.

Posts: 292 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Oct 08, 2004 Posts: 292

dconnor wrote:

Comcast Puts "Vonage Blocking" Rumors to Rest

By: Alyssa Johnson

March 3, 2006

Representatives for both Vonage and Comcast have denied recent rumors that Comcast is engaging in blocking activities that are affecting connection quality for Vonage's Voip service.

Read the full story: Comcast Puts "Vonage Blocking" Rumors to Rest

What I find interesting about this story is that the reporter gets a detailed statement from a official Comcast Representative (Jeanne Russo).

But for the vague Vonage response "To my knowledge, these rumors are hearsay " the person quoted was "a spokesperson for Vonage".

Now I have been following Vonage for a while, reading PR and news and Vonage is always quoted by a named official.

I think the reporter just called Vonage customer care and got some clueless rep in India reading from a script.

Posts: 26 · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject:

I have to agree with the post above. No offical press person from Vonage has been quoted.

In addition, one could harldy expect comcast to publicly admit violation the FCC policy guidelines, especially with a named source. If there were doing something, they don't want this kind of publicity, so it will go away. There certianly do not want people contacting their Attorney Generals and the FCC.

I've said all along, I do not know who is to blame, but if Vonage wants to take the position of the un-named source,

1. name the source at Vonage
2. publicly explain why the comcast service messages have been posted on your web site.
3. if Vonage has lied to us about the service message, let Vonage take the hit

I agree with what was sayed earlier, its time for Vonage to take an offical position on the forum and explain what the problems were and how there were corrected.

what we all can do is to contact our publicly elected officials about the bill introduced to congress.

Posts: 27 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Feb 16, 2006 Posts: 27

Let's keep it a secret

Just let folks continue to order knowing they can't get service. Nice Company. Better yet let them port their Phone number. That's just awsome.

Note the date of the article and note the date of Citrons statements. All within a few weeks ago. So the Big man admits that cable providers cannot be forced to not mess with their service. This is all from the horses mouth.

I suspect this is really Comcast. How many Comcast customers are Vonage Users, percentage wise. Also, out of those, who has a choice of a different broadband provider. I am sure the numbers are low.

I do not think a small provider would brave this, they just don't have the volume in customers to attempt this type of thing.

If it were a small provider and Vonage wanted to be hush hush about them then certainly if it were a large company they would definitely be hush hush. Lets be for real now something is up and Vonage is really being quiet about it. They have yet to state for a fact that it is an issue on their end. No Person in specific has said anything other than CALL COMCAST. The only one to say anything is Comcast who says they are working on it with Vonage in addition to saying it is a Vonage issue. So if it was, why would Comcast need to work with them . Vonage has made no comments other than CALL COMCAST. One thing is definite Someone is blocking Vonage as per Jeffery Citron and this came about as recently as a few weeks ago. The only outages that have consistency is from Comcast. I don't see any other trend ( maybe I missed something here) So if you add one plus one you get two that's the way I see it.

Unless there are some other issues in a geographical area with a certain provider I must conclude Comcast is the cable provider Mr Citron is speaking about.

Quote:

[The posted comments address a growing number of complaints regarding connection quality of Vonage's Voip telephone service, particularly in areas where Comcast offers broadband access. Vonage representatives, however, said they haven't noticed problems.

"To my knowledge, these rumors are hearsay," said a spokesperson for Vonage.

Hello, I worked there and they are very aware of the situation I tell you. 60 ( and this is not exaderation) percent of the tech calls coming in were from midwest Comcast users and we were told to tell customers that the issue was with Comcast and for them to CALL COMCAST. I am sure anyone who works in tech for Vonage can attest to this and if not they would stone cold be lying.

Posts: 11 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 11

Movado wrote:

One thing is definite Someone is blocking Vonage as per Jeffery Citron and this came about as recently as a few weeks ago. The only outages that have consistency is from Comcast. I don't see any other trend ( maybe I missed something here) So if you add one plus one you get two that's the way I see it.

I think you want Comcast to be the bad guy so bad, that no matter what the facts are you will conclude Comcast is out to get you. I really think you should get a new ISP (if you have Comcast) and be done with it. If they have done you wrong in the past, you should really try to move on with your life and get over it.

Blocking Vonage traffic would be.... say.... really stupid. It was done a few times with smaller ISPs and these providers were quickly brought to court.

Movado wrote:

Unless there are some other issues in a geographical area with a certain provider I must conclude Comcast is the cable provider Mr Citron is speaking about.

You should have used the word AssUme instead of conclude

Movado wrote:

Quote:

[The posted comments address a growing number of complaints regarding connection quality of Vonage's Voip telephone service, particularly in areas where Comcast offers broadband access. Vonage representatives, however, said they haven't noticed problems.

"To my knowledge, these rumors are hearsay," said a spokesperson for Vonage.

Hello, I worked there and they are very aware of the situation I tell you. 60 ( and this is not exaderation) percent of the tech calls coming in were from midwest Comcast users and we were told to tell customers that the issue was with Comcast and for them to CALL COMCAST. I am sure anyone who works in tech for Vonage can attest to this and if not they would stone cold be lying.

You worked for Vonage!? Hmm.... Wink

Actually a logical explanation of the issue being in the midwest Comcast area is evident in the data from this thread (I know data does not help you with the FUD) and it has nothing to do with blocking.... Folks, can we give the blocking debate a rest??? Comcast is not that stupid to intentionally target Vonage customers... Rolling Eyes

Posts: 11 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 11

LuisPR wrote:

What I find interesting about this story is that the reporter gets a detailed statement from a official Comcast Representative (Jeanne Russo).

But for the vague Vonage response "To my knowledge, these rumors are hearsay " the person quoted was "a spokesperson for Vonage".

Now I have been following Vonage for a while, reading PR and news and Vonage is always quoted by a named official.

I think the reporter just called Vonage customer care and got some clueless rep in India reading from a script.

Let's see... If I was not at fault I would publicly say it and try and help.... If I wrongfully and publicly blamed someone of a serious and politically charged issue that is being debated in Washington... I may keep my mouth shut and tell all tech support and Vonage people that post to forums to keep their mouth shut too.

Gee... too bad this wasn't Comcast blocking... that would really make good press.

Posts: 292 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Oct 08, 2004 Posts: 292

devnuller - would you care to responde to this?

Me having great difficulty trying to understand how Vonage can publicly display service status notices that clearly blame Comcast (with the Comcast 800 number and instructions to call Comcast for the past month ) but then make this statement.

LuisPR wrote:

So Vonage has more than just a few service announcements denouncing the Comcast network over the past month but publicly says they are not having a problem with Comcast?

Me thinks Vonage is afraid to publicly speak out against a power house like Comcast, with the pending IPO and all.