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."

Comments

There *could* be a way around this.

[Slartibartfast]

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.

Re:There *could* be a way around this.

[msblack]

With only 65,534 ports available, I don't think we want to start allocating *too* many of them to individual applications beyond the well-known port numbers below 1024. Use whatever ports you like. However, if your activity is disruptive to the ISP's ability to provide a minimal level of service to all their customers--not just you--they have every right to place limitiations. Free reign over the Internet is not an inherent right. Free speech doesn't even come close to applying here as it is a private network...boo hoo hoo.

Re:There *could* be a way around this.

[cbrocious]

What you've described is precisely how multicast DNS (mDNS... branded Rendezvous (now Bonjour) by Apple) does service broadcasting and browsing. You have a name for the service (foobar.raop_.apple.local. or whatever) and txt records to go along with the service (and an optional service name like 'My webserver')

I don't know...

[winstonmeister]

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?

Congress isn't happy

[moofdaddy]

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.

At what level?

[Jace of Fuse!]

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.

freedom talk

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Hmmm... maybe I'll wait

[ylikone]

I was thinking about cancelling my Bell telephone land line and just using my cable internet and vonage. I only have the options of bell sympatico ultra-high speed and rogers cable internet... if both of these services were to block voip ports then I would be left with no phone at all. We really need more high-speed broadband providers in this area (southern ontario, canada) if I will make the switch to vonage. Sure there are a lot of standard DSL choices, but I find them to be too slow for my needs.

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.

Re:Umm....

[LionMage]

It's the ISPs network. They can do whatever they want with it.

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.