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.'"
slashdotted out of the gate (Score:4, Insightful)
Question for the knowledgeable: could VOIP companies invoke the WTO for anti-competitive practices?
Re:slashdotted out of the gate (Score:3, Informative)
Re:slashdotted out of the gate (Score:5, Funny)
WTO : I don't think. (Score:2)
The VoIP providers have to comply to those local laws inside specific a country and have to collaborate with the state monopoly.
But maybe they could invoke WTO if the state impose inacceptable prices ?
Can the WTO atack a *nation* ?
Bell? (Score:5, Funny)
Which RBOCs would those be? BellFrance, German Bell, and Mideast Bell?
Re:Bell? (Score:2)
Re:Bell? (Score:2)
What me Worry about the Man (Score:2)
Round these parts, we are talking about Alfred E. NewMAN But there are those who say we are MAD ! [dccomics.com] Thats just humor in a jugular vein, though....
In a related story...... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNew
Re:In a related story...... (Score:3, Insightful)
This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Insightful)
The carriers will then have a choice: let the encrypted traffic through, or restrict their customer's Internet use to only approved (and monitored) traffic.
It will be interesting to see which option various countries choose...
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, if your VoIP service ever uses real phone lines, the telco can easily block it.
If this happened in the US, though, it would be an illegal abuse of their monopoly powers. When they start censoring certain data, they lose their common carrier status as well, so they become liable for all the child porn, viruses, illegal movie downloads, etc. that they transfer. Probably not a road they want to go down.
However, I guess cable companies in the US aren't common carriers, so they can (and do) block other VoIP. Someone needs to sue them for this -- it's absolutely ridiculous. When you break part of the Internet, you aren't an ISP anymore. You're a Content That We Cram Up Your Ass Service Provider... just like cable companies are already.
Personally, I use Speakeasy DSL which does nothing but route bits to and from my machine. That's the way the Internet should be!
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, it shouldn't be impossible to masquerade VOIP data as something like a first-person shooter data stream (many of which have voice-chat already integrated), or by some other means that would result in the ISP/Telco blocking legitimate users as well and raising their angst level.
Fighting technology is a losing proposition for conventional telcos, so they better find a way to work with users rather than against them...
N.
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that VOIP isn't legitimate?
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, this isn't credible. They are using it heavily themselves, internally. For some years now, it's been widely reported within the comms and computer industry that, except for the link to your home, most of the "phone" traffic in the US and other countries has been converted to VoIP. The phone companies have found that running IP and VoIP over their private lines is a cheap and very effective way to multiplex
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:3, Informative)
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
Raising a good point - online games for talk (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:3, Insightful)
A more insidious approach would be for the ISP to "traffic shape" and drop every nth RTP packet -- it wouldn't take much to degrade voice quality.
what if they break it... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the cable companies introduce latency on purpose to disrupt VoIP I could see that it could result in a litigation, but what if it just happens to be inherent in the network? Or could be made inherent? With high latency, you don't break the internet, y
But then online games suffer and Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I really don't think the cable companies are sophisticaed enough to pull this out wihtout breaking other things as well.
Re:But then online games suffer and Microsoft... (Score:2)
Chess (Score:2)
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:2)
Use SSL/TLS for encryption and let 'em work on weeding out THAT traffic from regular e-commerce and other SSL connections.
-Charles
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:2)
Not hard to do in Saudi Arabia.
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:2)
Rather, they'll try to strictly control who is allowed to use encryption. That way, they can spy on all the little people, while the little people (and media, police, etc.) can't spy on them.
Similarly in quite a lot of other countries.
I keep wondering why our current rulers here in the US don't seem to be trying to force us to drop ssh and go back to t
Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:2)
Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? (Score:3, Interesting)
So less return on television advertising, thanks to the evolution of technology, and what future does this have for television entertainment, if the place to advertise isn't the tube? Product placement, I suppose. Let's have a surreptitious party on the show with people having what is undeniably a very good time and feature Heineken cans/bottles, perhaps have an actor say, "this Heineken beer is excellent, much more flavourful then other leading brands."
Harlo Wilcox, Don Wilson and Bill Goodwin, your kind we shall meet again.
Some ads I'd miss (Score:2)
Sadly, Molson will no longer make the "I am Canadian" ads since they joi
It's the advertizers fault (Score:2)
If advertizers would have spent the cash to create decent, entertaining, and memorable commercials then we'd have less need for tivo and they'd be doing a lot better right now.
Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? (Score:2, Interesting)
Good bye ma bell (Score:3, Insightful)
They have been ripping us off for years because of their monopoly. Now they must compete or dye. Me, I already don't use the local telco and haven't looked back.
Good bye ma bell.... don't need you.
Re:Good bye ma bell (Score:2)
What does "To take on or impart color" or dye [answers.com] have to do with VoIP? I think the proper word should be "Die" or cease living [answers.com]is really what you're after here. I don't mean to be picky, but that made me feel weird when I read it. It had to be corrected... Thank you.
Nah, you're reading it wrong. (Score:2)
Right on, brother. Give peace a chance.
Flower power over IP.
Re:Good bye ma bell (Score:2)
More seriously... Sure, you don't need Ma Bell... Until you try to dial 911 for a heart attack or some similar nastiness from your VoIP line, and the call ends up in a dispatch center three states over. Seconds really do count in an emergency, and trying to get the call back to the right place is going to eat plenty of them.
And how about that cool VoIP phone? Works great... as long as you have AC power handy. No, much better than the old POTS phones, which were not at
Its called a Term of Service (Score:5, Insightful)
In other countries, not even Soviet Russia, there are State-owned Telcos, which have implicit or explicit Terms of Service. I'm sure the Telco in Saudi Arabia says things like "no porn, no homosexual activity, nothing critical of Islam" etc. They ALSO probably say "no VoIP".
Don't like it? Don't use the service... oh wait, you have to, because its a State owned monopoly. Oh well, strive for political change then.
Re:Its called a Term of Service (Score:2)
Until a company actually enforces a EULA, it's still a somewhat theoretical pr
Re:Its called a Term of Service (Score:2)
No VPNs, eh? (Score:2)
In other words, the policy bans virtually everything that anyone ever actually does. It wou
Fight Fire WIth Fire? (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think that would fly in the US (Score:2)
Besides, if you like foxnews, comcast is the most people get is already, albeit over cable tv, not internet.
I really hope we don't see this deterioration of the internet, though.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
Re:I don't think that would fly in the US (Score:2, Flamebait)
Please bear in mind that Germany, France, et al. are the same countries that are trying, through the UN, to forcibly take control of the internet's root servers.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I do want to emphasize that the structure of the internet today makes it very easy for powerful organizations (governments, in particular, but telcos in this case) to regulate and control the flow of information, no matter how legitimate.
Re:I don't think that would fly in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
To forcibly take control? They are questioning the status quo and are trying to persuade the world that it should be handled differently. It is their right to do this, and there is no force involved.
Also, please note that the article has nothing to do with the states of France and Germany. It mentions two cell phone companies, SFR and Vodafone, whic
Re:I don't think that would fly in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't like the way things are handeled and you:
Option A: just do it your own way, without talking to the others involved, risking to break a lot of things. "Who cares, I do what I want to do..."
Option B: Start a discussion about what you don't like, trying to convince as many of the others involved as possible that the current system needs in your opinion to be reformed.
What you are essentially saying that one should go with option A, because B just shows how much you hate the others? Strange thi
Common carrier status? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Common carrier status? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Common carrier status? (Score:2)
Similar article in the WSJ (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Similar article in the WSJ (Score:2)
Of course. At 64kbps (if that) a 1 minute voice call is less than half a maybebyte. My ISP charges 1 EUR / gigglebyte over the limit, and that's plenty rich. This means that, in a transparant market, 2000 transcontinental voice minutes should cost less than 1 EUR.
slapped and fined (Score:2)
If they try to do this, you can be sure that the competition authorities will slap and fine them over it. Complain as you will about EU or national authorities, but as we've seen with Microsoft ruling, they are quite active on anti-competitive issues, and a teleco that tries to block VOIP so as to ensure the the customer has to use the telco services and can't choose to use a lower priced alternative service will find itself in lots of trouble.
Wiretaps? (Score:3, Funny)
Wiretaps are a positive feature for users? No doubt governments/law enforcement get very warm and tingly over wiretaps but I can't see users warming to it quite so much.
Now spyware on the other hand, thats something that really does get users hot and bothered! ;)
What good does it really do to block... (Score:2)
Re:What good does it really do to block... (Score:2)
Here in Australia the main telco [telstra.com] is majority owned by the Federal Government. The share price is crashing because if people getting VOIP or mobiles and this is impacting Government revenue forecasts.
Currently we have a whole lot of anti terrorist legislation about to be passed, with some features which take rights away from normal people suspected of being terrorists.
If the security ser
Re:What good does it really do to block... (Score:2)
Time for strong encryption. (Score:2)
Good encryption should prevent a third party from determining any information about the payload. Bury all the protocol details in the data, initiate the session with a completely innocuous public-key encrypted exchange of symmetric keys, and proceed.
If carriers want to block all encrypted traffic, well...that's a whole different problem.
Re:Time for strong encryption. (Score:2)
Ebay (Score:2)
Skype? (Score:2)
China's National Networks... (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:China's National Networks... (Score:2)
"Huh?" you would say... It says:
"Mountain View, Calif., September 26, 2005 -- Narus, Inc., along with its channel partner Datacraft Korea, today announced that KT has expanded its network's security with use of NarusSecure. As part of Datacraft's TAPS system, NarusSecure now enables security coverage across the majority of KT's nationwide network."
http://ww [narus.com]
Tried in Norway and Failed (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in one of these oldfashioned phone companies. Due to our location international charges is a large part of our intake. Therefore we dont like Skype much. In fact we'd like this whole VoIP thing to be un-invented.
We tried looking into blocking and it's bad karma all the way. Trust me, the old guys loved the idea but the publicity would kill us. In the end we have to do VoIP ourself. Better to loose business to yourself than to somebody else. This of course provides me with interesting work so I'm not complaining ;-)
Re:Tried in Norway and Failed (Score:2)
I hope you can still seperate your personal and your company's opinion!
Thank you (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:4, Insightful)
That is definately a good idea. Another would be to reduce or remove long-distance charges. Although there are various companies that charge lower long distance (many I'm sure using Voip), this needs to be much more widespread. I don't know how long-distance charging works, but it needs to be much more like how tier-1 ISPs peer for free with each other. If it already is, then it's just pure profit for them.. so they'll have to be willing to take a cut in that profit to prevent losing it altogher.
What would be even better would be to blur the line between VoIP and POTS. Provide digital service (even voip) right from the CO, then throw it on the TDM network. Provide some of the benefits of VoIP (multiple concurrent calls, digital signalling (ie, instant caller id)) without the problems that VoIP has on the internet (latency, outages).
At my small business, we use VoIP internally for our phone system, but also as a backup line. We have 3 voice POTS lines, which all hunt from our main number. The last one hunts to a VoIP 'wholesale' (no voicemail, call waiting, etc services -- our phone system does that stuff) number, where we can accept as many calls as we have bandwidth (and we have a decent chunk of bandwidth). We also use the VoIP line for outgoing long-distance calls, or if the POTS lines are all used up. This effectively gives us "unlimited" call handling capability, for much much much less than it would cost to have 3 or 6 or 10 more phone lines. We just pay a littler over a cent a minute, plus a couple dollars a month for a DID (local phone number). The phone companies have a way to go before they're going to be able to match that and that's probably what has them scared.
Of course, blocking VoIP seems very dumb. If my ISP was my phone company, and they blocked my VoIP calls, my response would be to get a new ISP -- not say "oh well, I guess I'll just pay more for a less-capable analog phone line". Not only are they driving away voice customers, but they're driving away their internet customers as well.
Re:Tried in Norway and Failed (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn right. Adapt or Die.
Or, you know, lobby yourself into immortality, but that only means a slower, prolonged death.
How is this done...? (Score:2)
Just another arguement for a global wireless mesh (Score:2)
I can type 85 WPM and answer phones!
Re: (Score:2)
They'd better not.... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, if it's an all (buy their phone service AND their internet access) or nothing kind of thing, from me they'll get nothing.
Re:They'd better not.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they blocked your VoIP, couldn't you just report them for preventing your access to 911 on that connection?
steganography (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, spoofing the packets to look like non-VoIP packets might be a workaround.
It's all a cat-and-mouse game until someone files a lawsuit.
FCC VoIP 911 Requirements (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA...
Couldn't the FCC requirements [slashdot.org] that VoIP provide access to 911 emergency services be used as a legal precedent against carriers from degrading VoIP services in the US? If Vonage got in trouble [slashdot.org] for it, then any company that interferes with the call should be liable as well. Even if it isn't outright blocking the call, artificially deteriorating the quality could prevent proper communication in an emergency and endanger lives. Even jitter and latency in the call could possibly mean the difference between life and death in a critical situation.
VPNs (Score:3, Interesting)
Call quality can suffer over a VPN, but with a high-bandwidth connection, one call won't make a bit of difference, 20 or 30 calls might be a problem.
I'm not saying the encryption SHOULDN'T be great, but compared to a regular phone, I mean, I can stand outside your house and clip two alligator clips to the box and hear your regular phone calls...
Re:VPNs (Score:3, Interesting)
I run phone calls across the world through CIPE tunnels (UDP) for corporate security between internal off
Clarify (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Poor Intel misunderstood? (Score:2)
___
The Intel Communications Fund is a $500M equity investment fund that invests in technology companies developing innovative networking and communications solutions. The fund supports development of technologies for Intel® Internet Exchange(TM) Architecture, telephony applications based on CT Media(TM) and wireless and cellular solutions built around the Intel® Personal Internet Client Architecture and the Intel® Xsc
don't block VoIP, just make it suck (Score:2, Insightful)
--
The Switchboard [theswitchboard.ca] - the free browser based internet phone
Looks like 1984 type company (Score:3, Interesting)
Its much more than Skype, SIP blocking people. If a company is using their products, they are watching everything. Check their products page.
http://www.narus.com/solutions/IPanalysis.html [narus.com]
They brag about Telecom Egypt using their software/platform, they have rather interesting banner "bragging" about "Certified for China's national networks".
I would switch my cell phone, ISP immediately if they are using any of this companies products.
Its not Skype only.
In Europe? No way (Score:2)
Taxes (Score:3, Interesting)
in other countries (Score:2)
Here, Telcos and Cablecos are offering VOIP (Score:3, Interesting)
Since they are offering the service, I guess they would be very stupid to block it... Talk. about shooting yourself in the foot.
Today, companies are fighting any way they can to remain relevant in today's world. They can do that in two ways; Making the right moves at the right time to stay relevant like for example Koday did in the face of digital photography nearly 10 years ago OR forcing their clients to consider them relevant by screwing them when they don't have a choice (FOR NOW) like the RIAA and the CellCos do.
Sufice to say that this can only last for a given time and people remeber who screwed them...
Re:fp (Score:3, Funny)
Re:fp (Score:2)
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:2)
I don't expect the United Nations to do anything to stop these countries from blocking VoIP calls. Thus, why would we expect them to do anything about internet censorship?
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:2)
for food program. What's not to like? Just be
cool and hand over the domain servers, already.
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck are you on about? These are foreign corporations that want to screw all the consumers, as usual, and as pioneered by the, oh-so-democratically great US corporations. It is the corporations which are the enemy here and the UN has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Furthermore, corporate sponsored entities, the WTO and WIPO do have everything to do with this, and yet, somehow, I do see brainwashed tools shreeking at the top of their lungs about the UN and not them.
It is a democratic duty of every citizen of any democratic nation, be it US, Canada, France, Germany or any other to oppose corporatists at every turn, because corporatism and democracy are mutually exclusive.
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:2)
Huh? Care to explain how THAT follows?
(I'm sure that, with a username such as your own, the answer will at least be entertaining...)
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is rather simple: The stated and exclusive purpose of a corporation is to generate profit. The optimal condition to generate maximum profit is a government-protected monopoly. Therefore most corporations, once they reach certain size, actively work to undermine democratic processes, by attempting to lobby, bribe politicians and influence public opinion via affiliated media in order to fulfill their purpose to its full extent. Furthermore, once a corporation unduly grows in size, via acquisitions and mergers, with each expansion it becomes less and less a construct of a free market and more and more an ingredient of an oligarchy, as at each stage of consolidation the overall level of free market competition is lessened. The optimal political system for these corporations, once they are large enough, is fascism. Today, some corporations have accumulated more wealth and power then entire nations.
All of the above, combined, simply means that the purposes of corporations are at odds of those of cirizenry. The capitalist free market as well as the democratic societies in general are simply not equipped to deal with artificial "persons" of immesurable power and wealth, rivalling those of the representative governments. Corporations were never intended to be this way, nor does Adam Smith's theory take their existence properly into account as his was a theory of socially beneficial side-effects of personal greed aided by inventiveness to be aggressively and efficiently counter-balanced by competition. Thus large (especially multi-national) corporations are contrary to both the democratic credo of representative govenance and capitalist marketplace. Thereofre it is a duty of every believer in democracy and personal freedoms to oppose those who believe in governance by corproations for corporations and to insist that severe limits and restrictions be placed on the size and political activities of corporations. As corporatists believe the exact opposite, it is therefore a duty of every democratically oriented citizen of every country to oppose corporatists.
Is this the amusing explanation you wanted?
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:2)
No, what has done wonders for your wallet is the tens of thousands of small businesses which employ, as they always have, 80% of US citizens.
We've had corporations and a stock market in America for 200 years... I fail to see how they hurt us.
Stock market is irrelevant to this, as I do not advocate abolishment of business but controls on large corporations. As to the
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at least as far as Germany and France are concerned, the "regimes" mentionend in the article are Vodafone and SFR, both cell phone providers. I can asure you that neither of them is member of the UN.
Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:2)
Re:BS (Score:2)
Welcome to the wonderful world of analogy. TFS(ummary) is not claiming that TimeWarner is interfering with Fox News traffic. It is suggesting that such a scenario would be wrong, and anti-competative, just like foriegn telephone companies b
Re:BS (Score:2, Funny)
That would be an idiot tax, not a premium.
Re:Elvis? (Score:2)
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Good question (Score:3, Insightful)
"I guess this is illegal in my country (Brasil)."
Funny thing about the law, that usually doesn't matter. Also think about the how much law
Re:Perfect timing (Score:2)
Re:I have a dream. I mean a nightmare. (Score:3, Interesting)