Vonage Complains About Canadian ISP's "VoIP Tax"

from the stop-it-eh dept

When we wrote last week about how telcos want to begin charging people different rates to access different types of content, we failed to mention how this is already playing out in a few instances with VoIP. For example, Vonage complained several months ago that one ISP was forcing Vonage subscribers on its network to move to a higher-cost service plan with a static IP address, using the flimsy excuse that they needed to do so to follow some federal law enforcement rules. Vonage is now complaining to the Canadian government that ISP Shaw is charging Vonage subscribers a "VoIP tax" of $10 per month for some undefined "quality of service enhancement". Shaw, of course, doesn't charge users of its own VoIP service the fee, and won't provide a technical explanation of how the enhancement works or why it's necessary. Given comments from other VoIP providers as well as Shaw's penchant for traffic-shaping applications, the technical explanation and necessity appear pretty obvious.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Michael "TheZorch" Haney, 7 Mar 2006 @ 9:51am

    VoIP Legislation

    This is exactly why we need legislation protecting VoIP servies from this sort of thing happening. Call it anti-competitive activity, which is exactly what it is and should never be allowed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Panaqqa, 7 Mar 2006 @ 10:52am

    Typical...

    In Canada, Rogers (a large ISP) is using traffic blocking on BitTorrent. Only end to end encryption gets around it. I think we're in for a bad time of it up here when this type of thing really takes hold.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Deacon, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:36am

    Correction

    "Shaw, of course, doesn't charge users of its own VoIP service the fee"

    This isn't really correct. Shaw's VOIP plan costs $55 a month. I have Primus with unlimited long distance in North America, and it costs $30. Vonage is slightly more expensive than Primus, but still less than Shaw. A no frills plan with either of them can cost less than $20.

    So, while Shaw doesn't offer the "VOIP upgrade" for their own service, it's pretty obviously factored into the price. It's not like they're undercutting the competition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BG, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:52am

    Shaw vs. VoIP

    I have Shaw cable and broadband, and also Skype; I haven't seen any addtional charges from Shaw, though perhaps it's only for monthly-fee VoIP like Vonage?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DaMan, 7 Mar 2006 @ 11:57am

      Re: Shaw vs. VoIP

      I have Vonage and Shaw and I have not seen any charges .....yet, that could be because Shaw's VoIP isn't available in my area untill November.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Brent, 7 Mar 2006 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Shaw vs. VoIP

        It's actually an optional fee you can choose to pay if yuo want to make sure your VoIP traffic gets QoS.

        It's BS though, since QoS doesn't solve anything. It only assures your packets get QoS ON Shaw's network...once it leaves their network, it's anybodies game.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          George, 8 Mar 2006 @ 1:09pm

          Re: Shaw vs. VoIP

          Good point. But is this also implying that VoIP is deteriorated on Shaws networks? If so, by accident or on purpose?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Leonard Smith, 7 Mar 2006 @ 12:11pm

    Garbage

    Damn Canadians !!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Someone, 10 Mar 2006 @ 5:32pm

    Test

    Blah

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stevey, 27 Mar 2006 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Shaw vs VoIP

    Shaw is a brazen company with its pricing. They charge an extra $10. per month over and above the high speed internet rate!! That, I was told, is because you "might' get a second or 3rd computer sometime in the future! VoIP would be a second $10. charge. 20 bucks for nothing.

    If you go for a job with them, you have to agree to not tell anyone else working there how much you make.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2006 @ 4:15pm

    Rogers is totally packet shaping to throttle VoIP traffic in a completely illegal and competitive stance, and I have a lot of material to prove it. If it keeps up our business is going to deliver a report/complaint to the CRTC.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Joey, 2 Aug 2006 @ 1:31pm

      Is Rogers really?

      What do you mean "if it keeps up"??? Do you think they will change several hundred manhours in setting their network up the way it is now? I've complained a tonne to Shaw about their tax, and I didn't like it, so I stopped paying them when they didn't listen. Are you still paying Rogers every month?

      If you have so much proof that you think they will actually do something, then do it instead of just making empty threats. Things won't fix themselves like you're hoping they will.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.