Slashdot Mirror
Vonage's CEO Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship'
Avantare writes "CEO of leading VoIP provider says port blocking of VoIP traffic is one potential small step toward an unwanted future of IP-based censorship.
According to Vonage Holdings Corp. CEO Jeffrey Citron, intentional blocking of Voice over IP traffic is more than just a competitive dirty trick -- it's an act of censorship against free speech.
In an exclusive interview here Tuesday [March 1], Vonage's chief executive said the issue of the company's recent incident of having some VoIP traffic blocked reaches beyond the market for IP-based voice communications and into the realm of free speech -- and as such, should be protected by the courts, the FCC, or by new telecom regulation that ensures free and open access over the Internet."
I was thinking about issues along these exact same lines, and a way to get arround the inherent issue -- an issue that occurs in many other places -- came to me: expand the functionality of DNS. As it is, when you perform a DNS query, you are given an IP address, a hostname, or an MX record. Would it be that much more difficult to extend it a little bit, and have an optional "service 'FOO' can be found at port 12345"? Initially, clients would still expect to find their services at traditional ports (eg., http at port 80), but anyone who truly cared could distribute modified client software, such as Firefox (or Vonage phones) with the additional functionality. This would make port blocking ridiculous, because, for example, Vonage could have a VoIP system on port 80 -- making ISPs have to start block hosts to disable VoIP, and that would truly be flagrant censorship, and disallowed. Yes, there are some complications, but I think it's something that should be considered.
if I'd go so far as to call it cenorship, per se, but it certainly is a scummy thing to do. Broadband companies shouldn't cherry-pick what ports they'll use, especially if they want to keep their "common carrier" status. Isn't that the defense they like to use against releasing P2P customer information to the MPAA? Or is that more of a /.-ism than something said by the companies themselves?
Save the galaxy!
and get creative about masking your traffic. Sheesh.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I work in DC as a lobbyist for the VOIP industry and let me tell you that this is not somethign we are sitting idly by and letting go unnoticed. I have been making a lot of calls today to various senators and congress trying to get their support and it has not been too difficult at all. Many were outraged at the idea and asked what our recomendation was on what to do. At the moment we are drafting a bill and a number of senators (Biden, Lehey, Kennedy) have expressed interest in introducing it.
The bottom line is that the telecoms have a strangle hold and they are not willing to let go but they have over stepped their boundries this time. Expect to see hearings announced soon.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Blocking at what level?
Is it restricting free speech if a company blocks VoIP outside of their network?
Is it restricting if one ISP decides to block it for all of their customers?
In the first situation, it's not really any different than a company policy forbidding personal phone calls on company time.
In the second situation, switch ISPs to someone mroe reasonable.
I think before we can go around saying that blocking VoIP is denying free speech, we should look at each situation individually.
And of course, when possible, vote with dollars.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Ah, but if only the market were broad enough. My choices are either Cable, dial-up, or copying information to a disk and sending it through the mail. If only we all had the options you have :(
I asked around some VoIP execs I know, and it seems like only Vonage is being blocked this way - though their packets are exactly the same as Vonage's (except for the to/from bits). I don't know about "censorship", but it's clearly unfair competition from telcos seeking to offer competing VoIP.
--
make install -not war
Also, just realized vonage doesn't support calling 911 in canada yet! WTF is up with that? I have kids and it is important to have them be able to pick up the phone and just dial 911 (as they have been taught at school, the media, etc...). Yet another factor to consider before I make the switch.
Meh.
when they charge $30-something a month?
First of all, bubble packets let you get around blocked incoming ports.
Second of all, how is this different from disallowing any incoming or outgoing connections?
Some ISPs don't allow any incoming connections, some don't allow port 25 outgoing.
Blocking port 25 outgoing would be easy to fix, only block it for microsoft mailer agents. (try this on your spam filter).
Why don't ISPs upgrade to IPv6 so users have the most useful technology available to them?
ISPs don't upgrade to IPv6 because they maximize profit, not user services.
As for IPv6 being the 'most useful', it would mean every user could have a public static IP, and run their own services.
Every user could use true multicast (BitTorrent is fake multicast) meaning webcasts, online games, and many other applications would use a tiny fraction of the bandwidth they use now.
Shae Erisson - ScannedInAvian.com
Since Comcast is running a *government-granted* monopoly in my town, it is censorship. Same goes for Verizon.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Yes, but the more restrictive the ISP is, the less they look like a common carrier. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- and common carrier status confers all kinds of protections (legal and otherwise) that the ISP runs the risk of losing if it starts censoring specific kinds of traffic.
You would be correct, expcept that ISPs qualify as common carriers.
This means that they get things like protection for bad stuff people do on their network in exchange for not being allowed to ask what people will do on their network...
If they want to give up that protection (and have the ??IA sue *them* instead of end-users, they are welcome to do so -- then they would be legally allowed to restrict that sort of thing in [almost] any anti-competitive way they like.