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."

11 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. 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!

  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.

  4. 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
  5. 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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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