Slashdot Mirror


Panama Decrees Block To Kill VoIP Service

An anonymous reader writes "In an apparent attempt to stem telephone company revenue losses due to Internet telephony, the government of Panama has decreed that 46 UDP ports be blocked by all Internet service providers. The ports include ones that are commonly used for voice over IP as well as some that are used for other purposes, apparently with the idea that these, too, could be used to circumvent the POTS (plain old telephone system, a term of art) in making telephone calls."

38 of 453 comments (clear)

  1. Different Ports by hoagieslapper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How difficult could it be to write some software to use VoIP on port 80 or some other commonly used port?

    1. Re:Different Ports by agentZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Additionally, there is nothing preventing users from building a ppp, ssh, httptunnel or other tunnel over tcp and completely bypassing the UDP blocks from their workstation. It may even become a part of the software for DialPad or other platforms.

      It could, but there's a reason why they avoided TCP in the first place. For phone calls, it doesn't matter if the data gets there two seconds after it was sent (ie. the reliable communication offered by TCP.) The data needs to get there now, or not at all. It's okay to have a quarter-second drop in a phone call.

      I also worry that the computational overhead of these protocols, especially ssh, could be problematic for a real-time communication. But hey, processors are getting better all the time...

    2. Re:Different Ports by shamilton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This guy hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. The receiving OS would throw this packet away and send an ICMP error back, raw sockets or none.

      sh

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    3. Re:Different Ports by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With more ISP restrictions, filters, etc on various ports, we seem to be moving towards a one port internet where most everything is sent over HTTP via port 80 (also https 443).

      HTTP works great for webpages, but using it for everything in the longrun is bad for everyone for numerous reasons.

      What happens when VoIP is widely done via port 80 - what are they going do then?...block port 80...I don't think so!

      Ron Bennett

    4. Re:Different Ports by shamilton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *shrug* I took your "but that wouldn't be too hard" as being the whole process, not just the stripping out the tcp header, which is sufficiently trivial to not require a statement like that.

      Your post came off as being rather pretentious, a convoluted approach to something which could be much more easily solved by changing only the port, to 53.

      sh

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    5. Re:Different Ports by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you're calling a fake TCP header is really a real TCP header. Furthermore, you've achieved nothing. All that you have done is add lots of overhead and causes every hop between the end-points to treat it as TCP (because it is). What you've really created isn't a fake TCP header, it's a REAL TCP packet with UDP being tunneled. The end result is that all of the problems that people specifically hoped to avoid by using UDP is suddenly realized. The net result is exactly the same tunneling UDP over a TCPIP connection.

      In short, way too much effort for zero return, especially in sight of the fact that existing tunnel packages exist that will yield equally crappy results.

  2. They will need to also block every other port. by Nicopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are 65534 other ports wich can be used for VoIP, they must block them too!

    1. Re:They will need to also block every other port. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well... it's pretty hard to go around Panama. Some say you have to go south around South America, but I say you should go north into above Canada.

  3. Another good example of fear of progress by XJoshX · · Score: 5, Insightful


    People have tried to fight progressive technological evolution for ages and it has yet to ever work once. Any country making laws forcing its citizens to live behind the times is only hurting itself. What if panama had outlawed the original telephone because it hurt the post office? Granted, Voice IP isn't quite as drastic a step, but it is progress and it will succeed on its own merit, laws or no laws.

    1. Re:Another good example of fear of progress by marksilverman · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I don't think it's about fighting evolution -- it's just about delaying it for as long as possible. They have an existing monopoly and every day they stretch it out the money continues to pour in.

      Another example: the record companies know that every year they can delay the widespread adoption of file-sharing technologies is another year they can freely suck the blood out of the american public. They can't stop it in the long run, but they have a huge financial incentive to slow it down.

  4. Re:damn mexicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Um.... Panama is not in mexico... A few contries seperate them.

  5. I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Example: I buy a new tool. It is a clawhammer. For some reason, this deprives the company making nail removers of money, especially considering their old nail removers were overpriced.

    So, the government affiliated nail remover maker goes and makes buying clawhammers illegal.

    This is immoral. You can't just rent-a-law because your overpriced technology is being smashed by a preferrable alternative.

    I mean, just because you can buy laws (ie: riaa), doesn't mean it should be allowed to happen..

    1. Re:I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by PerryMason · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it immoral, but thats just the way that capitalism 'works'. The same story is being played out all over the world in nations of varying technological advancement. Big business has developed a hold over government to the extent that in many many cases, the outdated or inferior technology becomes government sanctioned and the opposition becomes if not outlawed, then at least severely hampered in its development.

      This is a situation which, IMHO, will only increase as we see massive values for companies being created overnight (in business terms) for IT related products which are _bound_ to become outdated in a matter of a few years. For the lucky few like MS, they were able to get the wealth early, buy the politicians and can now sit back and reap the rewards. For anyone in competition, the barrier to entry just got a whole lot higher. Not only do you need a better product, but you need a spare billion dollars to throw at Capital Hill.

      Gotta love that combination of capitalism and 'democracy'.

      --
      "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
    2. Re:I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why us nutty Libertarians like to yell and scream about having a smaller gov't, one that has a limited scope and can't change laws for the highest bidder willy nilly. Corperate welfare has brough us such niceities as inflated sugar and corn prices, farm subsidies that keep third world nation's firmly entrenched in the third world (due to lack of access to markets), ever expanding copyright lengths, and a whole other mess o' problems. It ain't capitalism's fault, its the (corporate)welfare states'.

      Then again, we Libertarians are a bunch of heartless bastards who use poor folks as a cheaper substitute for furniture, so what do we know.

    3. Re:I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a case of the government interfering with capitalism. A corrupt government will ruin any economic system, including your apparent preference, socialism.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by shnarez · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes it immoral, but thats just the way that capitalism 'works'.

      This is not called capitalism. It's called corruption.

    5. Re:I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by aiken_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er, Ok, I'll take you up on this.

      Say I'm your government affiliated nail remover company, and I employ 25% of the domestic population. Your foreign clawhammer company is coming in and creating unemployment, destroying jobs, and generally upsetting my (admittedly backwards) economy. I go to outlaw clawhammers so my populace can remain employed (and pay taxes). Should that "not be allowed to happen"?

      Say I'm a large automaker with higher overhead than my foreign competition because of worker safety laws and my contractual obligations to the various unions I work with. I'm damned well going to lobby the government to add tariffs to foreign cars to level the playing field. Should that "not be allowed to happen"?

      Say I'm a large US distributor of alcohol and I want to spend some money to make sure that my main competitor, marijuana, remains illegal. Should that "not be allowed to happen"?

      Finally, if you're still supporting the implied-passive-voice "should not be allowed to happen", how about we take it out of passive voice. *By Who*?

      You think the UN, or maybe the US, should invade countries because they have different economic ideas than us?

      It's not immoral. It is economically unsound. And there's no force in the world with the moral authority to tell Panama (or anyone else) that they have to see things our way.

      You imply that this kind of thing "should not be allowed to happen" -- I say the free market "will not allow this to happen." There's no moral judgement to be made here. The free (or relatively free) market will speak, and that's that. No sense getting your panties in a twist. And you know what? The manner in which it does happen may just be educational to all of us.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    6. Re:I don't see how this is moral or legal.. by banzai51 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that a smaller government is more easily bought out and/or overwhelmed by much bigger businesses.

  6. Hello? Big business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hello? Big business? I wonder who lobbied for that change. Because is it good for their citizens? Or just the government's big money backers? This isn't just an American problem. This is another red flag telling us we need to get special interest groups out of all governments.

  7. Re:Not hard at all... by LarsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bottom line though is that the government will not be able to control the VoIP "problem" entirely without just pulling the plug on all Internet activity.

    Too true.

    I'm actually more worried about collateral damage here - if the news report is correct then any traffic passing _through_ Panama would be subject to the filters - stopping any application that just happens to use one of the ports mentioned.

    --
    If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
  8. Re:Logical Conclusion of VoIP by sammaytg1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your logic seems flawed to me. When you make a call using voip you totally bypass the phone comapny. YOu aren't costing them anything. THis is like saying that it's wrong to listen to indie band because the riia spent money on the latest release. THe phone companies time ma have come. Just because they were the only way to make calls 30 years ago doesn't mean that now. If voip is a beter alternitive for the people(sound quality and realibilty in exchange for cost) then good for them.

    --
    procrastination is a way of life aka i'll think up a sig later
  9. Re:Not hard at all... by rodgerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've kind of missed the key point, though: once it starts becoming harder and requiring more knowledge to do it, the phone company will be safe again. The danger comes from pervasive, easy to use VoIP services which anyone can use. If the decree can drive it back to the point where only a few geeks are doing VoIP it's all a success for the telco.

  10. Re:It's ok - Panama sucks by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the long run, violent overthrow of the government worked OK for the French, English, and the United States. It's more of a last resort, though.

  11. I got a better solution by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Adapt or die. There is no rule that states established businesses get to do business "the old" forever. If a better cheaper way of doing things comes along, oh well, tough cookies. There were once a lot of blacksmiths as well. So to the phone companies I say, Adapt or Die, better yet just die.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  12. This is crazy. by fearincontrol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This ranks up with the CBDTPA as the most absurd legislation of the twentieth century. There are so many loopholes around this law it's stupid, not to mention the fact that banning a port to try and stop any certain service is stupid -- as has been pointed out, it's not exactly amazingly difficult to change the port used by the program. *clap clap* I think Panama secretly elected GWB. This is exactly the kind of ignorant decision he's famous for.

  13. Re:Not hard at all... by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The bottom line though is that the government will not be able to control the VoIP "problem" entirely without just pulling the plug on all Internet activity. That would be a steep price and they will face economic pressure to not do it.

    If the Panamanian government gets serious about this, they could put a stop to VoIP by making it illegal to use VoIP in Panama. Many countries have done this kind of thing in the past. In the UK 20 or so years ago, it was not possible to set up a public internet because of government rules.

  14. Another good example of corporatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no money to be made in telecommunication in the long run if technology runs its course. Or at least it is going to gross millions instead of billions. In that situation even the remnants of the industry remaining today would largely have to collapse.

    The industry is too big and too rich to go down without a fight, in Panama this results in naively blatant intervention. In the US the telecom industry will probably pair up with the content industry to outlaw private private peer to peer broadband communication sooner or later, under the guise of security and copyright protection. Only a monopoly or a price fixed ogliopoly will be able to squeeze money out of people on the same scale as today for communications in the future ... with Bush's soft stance on monopolies the time is ripe to bring the US a couple of steps closer to corporatism, and after that the WTO and globalization can take it on a world tour, and the combined bribing power of the content and the telecommunication industry might just be the force which can accomplish it.

  15. Re:Logical Conclusion of VoIP by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What are you talking about? You pay for internet access. If the phone companies can't make enough money off of providing Internet access to pay for the access itself, then *that* is the problem. Internet access costs should go up. Specifically charging for VoIP is the Wrong Thing to do.

    I fear that in the future the Internet will actually move this way. You want to use Kazaa? Pay a per-hour fee for the privilege. You want to use VoIP? Pay per call. This would kill innovation in Internet services. Would P2P have ever developed if this kind of infrastructure was already in place? No, nobody would have been able to use it because of limits on what they could send over the Internet. The whole point of the Internet is that it is this great 2-way communication medium with nearly infinite possibilities and no limits on what kind of information can travel on it. When you limit what can be transmitted to a few well-known protocols you kill that. Firewalls have already done enough damage to innovation on the Internet. I don't want to be using HTTP to browse HTML webpages served by media conglomerates and POP3 to read the same old e-mail 10 years from now just because ISPs have become complacent and not allowed anything new to develop. I want to be using Freenet and Jabber and other protocols that haven't even been invented yet.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  16. Re:In other news... by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US did something worse: they subsidized inefficient transportation in the form of the personal automobile and the required infrastructure to support it. Politicians that must be considered corrupt dismantled public transportation around the country. The result have been urban sprawl and the breakdown of social networks, some of the longest commute times in the world, poor air quality, an unnecessary dependence on foreign oil, and enormous expenses for oil and cars.

  17. The IPSEC era draws ever-closer. by rayd75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is exactly the sort of thing that I expect to push the adoption of IPSEC or another transport level encryption scheme; not the desire to prevent loss of personal information or financial data. Rather than the elimination of eavesdropping, the increased resistance to targeted filtering will be the "killer app" that encourages widespread use of on-by-default encryption by Joe User.

  18. Almost true... by Jetson · · Score: 3, Insightful
    A new 50% tax increase is also planned on the steel and rubber industries as the products of these industries are used extensively in the manufacturing of "automobiles"

    As funny as you thought that was, it's painfully close to the truth. The U.S. government recently enacted a 38% duty on all soft-wood lumber imports from Canada in order to protect its own lumber industry. Now they expect Canada to supply raw logs for processing south of the border (not to mention cheap electricity with which to process it).

  19. Re:Your solution sucks by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That is completely idiotic. If everyone is using the phone company for internet access, how would the phone company go out of business?

    If everyone switched to VoIP, they'd just be using one phone connection, either DSL or analog modem, instead of two...which the phone company managed to survive on for decades. They may not like everyone switching back to one phone line, but I fail to see how it will kill them.

    VoIP affects long distance companies, not local companies. Local companies provide the last mile just fine. And long distance companies can just up and die, as far as I care. If they want to run the fiber, they can run the fiber, but that's all we need them for.

    Frankly, it's a much saner business model, everyone selling bandwidth to each other, instead of the wackass 'long distance' charges we pay to half a dozen different parties that don't have anything to do with the actual wires.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  20. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What many arrogant america bashers both in the US and abroad dont understand is that america simply doesnt have the population density that europe does. We used to be even more rural than we are now. And we still are by the simple virtue of or population size and land area. Thus the US and Austrailia will have higher per capita energy consumption than europe. (And thats why Austrailia got concessions on kyoto that the US didn't??)

    The infrastructure decisions were made at different times in the "new world" and europe. Mass transit isnt nealy as efficient in the US as it is in europe due in part to our geography and in part due to infrastructure decisions that we have made. Obviously infrastructure decisions are a product of the times they are made in. In that light, the decisions made by the US government make much more sense.
    The places in the US that could benefit from extensive mass transit systems already have them (NY, SF and LA for example, or most major US cities) the problem is that people still need cars to do any significant travel, our cities are much farther apart than those in europe. The size of the US is simply a guarantee that the US will forever lag behind europe in per capita energy consumtion when it come to transportation, simply because we have to travel farther.
    Thats not to say that everyone cant become more efficient, but europe's solutions wont be the same as the american's because everyone has different requirements.

  21. Voice on Cable Modems by billstewart · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Most of the voice-over-cable-modem deployment isn't VOIP - it's analog 4kHz connections pulled off the analog side of the signal space, before anything digital gets done. These get connected to a traditional 5ESS or Nortel DMS phone switch, which was much easier organizationally for the telcos to implement quickly and scalably, without having to reinvent things like billing. It's theoretically possible to use the digital signalling on digital cable, but that's really the Mos Eisley of the telecom standards world - you'll never see a more wretched hive of scum, villainy, and creeping featurism. VOIP over the cable modem space will probably win out eventually - we'll see if the competitive impact of the AT&T Broadband sale to Comcast breaks some of the organizational barriers (plus a couple extra years of VOIP technology development and Moore's Law.)

    Two of the problems of VOIP over cable are service reliability and reliability during power failures. The easiest way to fix the latter is to integrate some cheap cellphones into the equipment. Service reliability's a bit harder - the economics of the cable TV business assume that you need enough technicians and trucks to take care of most failures, so customers are happy and you don't need to rebate their bills for downtime very often, but that fundamentally it's just television, and if it goes down for the weekend in bad weather, your customers can read a book or go watch videotapes until you can get it fixed.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  22. Re:Not hard at all... by F.Prefect · · Score: 5, Insightful
    any traffic passing _through_ Panama would be subject to the filters

    Although realistically this is unlikely to be a problem for any significant percentage of Net traffic. Topologically, Panama is most probably a spur on the Internet, rather than a hub. Most of the western hemisphere's traffic passes through the US west coast on its way to anywhere. By the time a given packet hits Panama, I'd lay good odds its actually bound for an endpoint in Panama.

    --
    --Ford Prefect
  23. Blocking VoIP does have one good side effect by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    VoIP uses a LARGE amount of bandwidth. If these and similar sorts of services are disabled then bandwidth will be freed for other uses. Ok , its only a small compensation but nevertheless...

  24. Re:um, the story is about Panama ... by Anarchofascist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I said, in part:
    Billyuns of dollars are being lost, and are probably being used to fund terrorism!

    "cascadingstylesheet" reflexively responded:
    Er, the story is about Panama, isn't it? Please try to keep /. reflexive US-bashing in check.

    Er, er, er, indeed. That's some serious crack you're smoking, friend, where can I get some?

    I was not US bashing, I was corporate luddism bashing. Corporate sector losing money due to new technology => solution => buy new laws to outlaw new technology. How to peddle the new laws to the public? The way it's done over here in Europe by the entertainment industry is to put an anti-piracy message at the start of videos saying that piracy funds terrorism.

    Just because you have stupidity in the US, don't assume that someone attacking stupidity is attacking the US.

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
  25. This seems familiar... by olympus_coder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know! It is exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are doing:

    1) New technology comes along and obsoletes a buissness model
    2) Old buisness model uses power to by law outlawing new, better technology, rather than adapt

    Seems reasonalbe to me.

    The government of Panama is just a little less capable than the US. The US goverment would have made it illegal to discuss which port any service was on including in research paper. :/

    --
    Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.