Slashdot Mirror
Vonage Says VoIP Traffic Blocked By Providers
Anonymouse writes "Advanced IP Pipeline reports that Vonage has filed numerous complaints with the FCC over their VoIP traffic being blocked by major providers, something providers have long worried about but had not yet been seen 'in the wild.' Analysts expect the issue of network neutrality (or network discrimination) is only going to get larger as the bell and cable companies expand their VoIP efforts and bump heads with smaller providers."
So SSL is not really an option. IPSec might be an option.
New port numbers or IP addresses may be simpler, but can also more easily be blocked.
Well, according to the article the blocking is being done by the LECs, which are merely telephone companies that provide local service.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
You and the parent both work for cable companies, and it's interesting that you both miss a key point. There is a huge difference between what the cable company does, and what vonage does. The cable companies are now investing money to *recrecate* the type of system vonage has developed.
Vonage isn't in any way "leeching" off cable providers, just as amazon & ebay aren't leeching of any ISP. The Internet is an end-to-end system, so it takes two endpoints to be useful. Vonage is actually helping to make Internet service more attractive, by providing additional services *via* the Internet than were available previously.
If the cablecos want to build voip services also, that's great. The key to remember is that they are selling access to the global Internet, and if they start "pruning" of the sections of the Internet that happen to compete with their business, they're going to have to fight their customers, and the FCC.
You may be misinformed about "equal access" in the US. This refers to the publicly funded POTS system. The idea is that the phone system is owned by the govt, not the telco. So the govt can mandate who can use it. Privately funded cable systems OTOH, have no requirement to allow competitors to use their infrastructure. The difference is that a cable company is not obligated to allow a competitor to sell cable or Internet service over their lines. Because connectivity is a necessary element of Internet service, blocking/restricting connectivity is a (partial) failure to fulfill their obligation the service contract. Applying "equal access" to viop would mean allowing other phone service prviders to use the voip servers that the cableco owned.
You dont understand how SIP works.
VOIP calls run exclusively over UDP packets. There is not a TCP packet to be found. SIP, or Session Initiation Protocol is a UDP handshake that is used to setup a connection. With consumer VOIP circuits, the client will send a SIP registration request to the SIP proxy server (Vonage in this case). The proxy server will reply with an OK. The actual payload of the UDP packets looks just like an HTTP transaction (complete with a GET and headers) and ditto for the reply. It is just not in a TCP stream. If a packet gets lost, then it is lost and the transaction does not happen.
The SIP client will nearly continually repeat this UDP registration followed by shorter "keep alive" exchanges. The idea is to keep any NAT router happy so that the channel now is end-to-end connected.
If the server needs to ring your phone, it now has an IP address and UDP port number that it can send a packet to. This then causes the SIP client to setup an RTP "connection". Again, these are UDP packets and TCP is nowhere to be found. The RTP connection is basically a set of UDP packets sent out very quickly. For a non-compressing codec (like G711.u [aka ulaw]), this means 50 UDP packets/second of about 220 bytes each. The packets go both ways at full speed (which is why VOIP does not work over dialup). There is no error detection. If a packet is lost, 20ms of voice is dropped.
So is a SIP client a server. I don't think so. I think it is wrong to describe a server as something that listens on a port. In the case of residential internet access, it is not the listening that the ISP does not like. It is the bandwidth and usage patterns. A better metric would be "is this a one to one communication". A web server is one to many. Ditto for streaming video. SIP is one to one. If you want to call SIP a server, then you should probably call an IM client a server as well.
What the ISPs are really doing is trying to figure out how to charge some people "more" when they can get away with it. It is not just "usage", but also an arbitrary categorization of what is residential access. From a purely network and traffic point of view, bittorrent should be the first thing outlawed. A local webserver on port 80 is nothing compared to a good torrent.
The other issue is "should an ISP be allowed to block competitors traffic". A lot of people argue against regulation of any kind. If you are one of these then you are a fool. If you leave a company completely without regulation, they will steal from you. There have to be limits to their behaviour. I have seen VOIP companies that claim, in the contracts, that they don't honor local number portability requests. They are saying that if you get a phone number from then that they will not give it up. Perhaps the regulations have not caught up to VOIP providers, but this policy is wrong, probably illegal, and the government should work to stop it. Similarily, if an ISP has a policy to hurt a competitors traffic so that their service works better, then that ISP is wrong. If this is not against the law, then the law should be enlarged to stop the practice. At the very least, this policy should be openly disclosed by the ISP to all of their customers up front.
It is about time for businesses to provide service to their customers instead of feeling like their customers are their property to leverage.