Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Businesses Technology

VoIP Backlash From Phone Companies 281

denis-The-menace writes "An article from the online edition of IEEE Spectrum says phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced they will block VoIP calls on their networks. Using new software from Narus Inc., the carriers can detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. Gotta love Ma Bell." From the article: "Narus's software does far more than just frustrate Skype users. It can also diagnose, and react to, denial-of-service attacks and dangerous viruses and worms as they wiggle through a network. It makes possible digital wiretaps, a capability that carriers are required by law to have. However, these positive applications for Narus's software may not be enough to make Internet users warm to its use. 'Protecting its network is a legitimate thing for a carrier to do ... But it's another thing for a Comcast to charge more if I use my own TiVo instead of the personal video recorder they provide, or for Time Warner, which owns CNN, to charge a premium if I want to watch Fox News on my computer.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VoIP Backlash From Phone Companies

Comments Filter:
  • by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @05:33PM (#13848167)
    .... Some phone companies in Canada are tying to brand their services so that they don't sound like they're VoIP because of the negativity associated with these services.

    http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews /TPStory/LAC/20051020/TWVOIP20/TPTechnology/?query =voip [globetechnology.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, 2005 @05:35PM (#13848185)
    The VoIP Backlash
    By: Steven Cherry
    Internet-based telephony saves consumers money by bypassing traditional carriers--but new software lets the carriers block those pennies-per-minute calls

    The convergence of telephony and the Internet is a great thing for consumers. It makes voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) services, such as Vonage, Packet8, and Skype, possible.

    In particular, Skype Technologies SA, in London, looms as a dagger poised to cut your phone costs--and your local phone company's profits. With its SkypeOut service, a call anywhere in the world costs about 3 US cents per minute. And when the recipient is also a Skype user, the call is absolutely free.

    In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, regulations protect a phone company's revenues, prohibiting customers from saving money by making phone calls using any service other than the national carrier, Saudi Telecom, based in Riyadh. Skype users there have gleefully flouted those regulations, paying cheap local tariffs to access the Internet and use it for their calls, instead of directly using Saudi Telecom's expensive long-distance and international calling services.

    Although these Skype calls travel along Saudi Telecom's network, the national carrier had been helpless to prevent the practice--VoIP phone calls were just ordinary data packets, indistinguishable from Web and e-mail traffic. Until now.

    A seven-year-old Mountain View, Calif., company, Narus Inc., has devised a way for telephone companies to detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. For example, now when someone in Riyadh clicks on Skype's "call" button, Narus's software, installed on the carrier's network, swoops into action. It analyzes the packets flowing across the network, notices what protocols they adhere to, and flags the call as VoIP. In most cases, it can even identify the specific software being used, such as Skype's.

    Narus's software can "secure, analyze, monitor, and mediate any traffic in an IP network," says Antonio Nucci, the company's chief technology officer. By "mediate" he means block, or otherwise interfere with, data packets as they travel through the network in real time.

    Another of Narus's Skype-blocking customers is Giza Systems, a consulting company that specializes in information technologies. Giza, which is based in Cairo, Egypt, installed Narus's software on the network of a Middle Eastern carrier in the spring. Nucci wouldn't say which one, but presumably it is Telecom Egypt, the national phone company. Narus already has a close relationship with the carrier, having written the software for its billing system.

    The desire to block or charge for VoIP phone calls extends far beyond the Middle East. According to Jay Thomas, Narus's vice president of product marketing, it can be found in South America, Asia, and Europe. International communications giant Vodafone recently announced a plan to block VoIP calls in Germany, Thomas says. A French wireless carrier, SFR, has announced a similar plan for France.

    Nor is it just Skype that's at risk. Most international telephone calling cards also use VoIP technology.

    In the United States and many other countries, a phone company's common carrier status prevents it from blocking potentially competitive services.

    "But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," Thomas says. "So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it."

    U.S. broadband-cable companies are considered information services, which by law gives them the right to block VoIP calls. Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Thoma
  • by Pentavirate ( 867026 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @05:38PM (#13848211) Homepage Journal
    I took out the nyud.net:8090 and it worked fine. FYI.
  • by Strudelkugel ( 594414 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @05:41PM (#13848252)

    Today's Wall Street Journal Online [wsj.com] also has an article. It discusses the attempts US domestic carriers are making to block third party services, as well as limiting file sharing and other "hi bandwidth" uses. Fortunately the FCC has prevented the major carriers from blocking independent VOIP providers, but Europeans evidently have a different view, which is weird since our consumer internet connectivity sucks compared to theirs, let alone Asia.

    Just shows what an overpriced cash cow voice is now.

  • by theCSapprentice ( 921974 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @05:54PM (#13848371)
    Check out Narus's homepage...http://www.narus.com/ [narus.com]

    Now tell me that a company certified for China's National Networks is who we want to secure the general internet. Its almost as if they are saying YES to censorship and control. I'm not saying security is a bad thing, but pick how you do it with care...

  • by marsperson ( 909862 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @06:27PM (#13848651)
    Probably not, because the behavior being challenged at the WTO would have to be official goverment policy of a state, rather than the action of a private firm. They probably have a better chance going to individual free trade watch dogs in the affected countries.

    Indeed, something similar has happened in Chile recently where Voissnet, a chilean company, and an american one challenged major phone company Telefonica's practice of hindering third party VOIP apps. The case is still being processed, but the complaining companies allege unfair trade practices.
  • Clarify (Score:3, Informative)

    by dslauson ( 914147 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @06:32PM (#13848689) Journal
    Something TFA didn't make as clear as they could have-

    The article is referring to phone companies that also have an ISP service trying to block voip data from travelling over their internet service.

    That's as opposed to not allowing their land-line phone customers to recieve voip calls.

    It just seemed like some people were confused.
  • by JesseMcDonald ( 536341 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @07:28PM (#13849124) Homepage
    Jitter is defined as random variances, typically in the 10's or 100's of milliseconds, in the delays between successive packets in stream. It is related to latency, which is the minimum delay between the transmission and reception of any given packet. Given that, how, exactly, would adding jitter impede e-mail, web pages, instant messages, or any primary Internet services besides live voice conversations and possibly online real-time games? The technique was mentioned in that article as an effective method for discreetly discouraging the use of VoIP.
  • by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @08:28PM (#13849526)
    An aside is that a phone link is usually an RTP connection, not TCP. Look it up. It's a 15-year-old protocol

    Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) was accepted [ietf.org] as an IETF standards track protocol in January 1996. The research goes back as far as the 1970's [columbia.edu].

    that is essentially TCP

    RTP is not specific to any particular transport layer [columbia.edu], but in IP networks is layered upon UDP.

    That being said, it most assuredly cannot be used over TCP [columbia.edu].

    Furthermore, it is most unlike TCP in that it is an unreliable transport protocol.

    augmented by a "QOS" (guaranteed minimal throughput) feature.

    From the RFC [ietf.org]:

    Note that RTP itself does not provide any mechanism to ensure timely delivery or provide other quality-of-service guarantees, but relies on lower-layer services to do so. It does not guarantee delivery or prevent out-of-order delivery, nor does it assume that the underlying network is reliable and delivers packets in sequence. The sequence numbers included in RTP allow the receiver to reconstruct the sender's packet sequence, but sequence numbers might also be used to determine the proper location of a packet, for example in video decoding, without necessarily decoding packets in sequence.
    RTP gives you the ability to monitor the transfer through RTCP, but offers you no QoS guarantees. In other words, your application needs to do its own QoS by monitoring the RTCP. Depending upon your application and the underlying transport, you may also need to retrieve QoS information from other sources.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...