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.
IANAL, but I don't think HIAL either.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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!
the market will take care of this
the day my ISP blocks a voice over IP port is the day that I switch to another ISP
That makes my Linksys router The Ministry of Truth.
Only governments censor. This would be anti-competitive. Semantics, yes, but an important distiction nonetheless.
I'm done, carry forward with the conversation.
blenderking.com over 50,000 blenders can't be wrong
and get creative about masking your traffic. Sheesh.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
In 2003 the district courts allowed companies to block different types of malicious traffic- so I thought blocking of different tracknig was allowed? I guess since this isn't malicious they should have a case.
Want to learn about anything sexual? Check out the sex wiki:
Unless that ISP is named "Congress" or someone to whom Congress has delegated a monopoly position, I don't see the connection to Free Speech.
Nerd Rock In Progress
Does this mean that my ISP that is blocking my port 25 will have to stop if VoIP wins out over the ISPs. Because I want to run a mail server so I can speak to people in large numbers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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!
Of course, his bonuses might be "censored".
...just anti-competitive business practices by entrenched, government-sponsored monopolies. Still bad - but I guess "censorship" elicits the stronger, knee-jerk reacion.
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
I'm no VOIP expert, but who's to say various comapnies couldn't just pick random ports to pass along traffic, if you want to get really tricky, predestined by some sort of timing software or some such thing? Wouldn't it be terribly easy to get around port blocking like this? If you wrote it into the software, you wouldn't have to worry about losing the non-tech customer base. Anyone know why this wouldn't work?
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
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.
I asked a representative of Vonage on the phone about this issue recently. They said that they had never heard of it, and that it wouldn't be a problem.
Case closed, thanks to their wonderfully well informed technical support department.
My company uses vonage... anyone else notice their service went out at around 3:00 EST? www.vonage.com went down, too.
The engineers, Citron said, "could talk to the [customer's] box, but the box couldn't talk to [Vonage's] server, and it only couldn't talk SIP. We thought, Ah! There must be something going on here. So my guys just changed the SIP ports to something different, and 'schwing!' The service worked just fine."
This has to be the first time a CEO has used the word 'schwing!' in an official interview.
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
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.
Wait, so do is VOIP regulation a good thing, or is it a bad thing?
I'm confused.
You probably shouldn't click this.
Intentional blocking of VoIP is censorship? Perhaps the ISP decided to make VoIP a privilege, instead of a right. Besides, why would the FCC or any American-centered communications bureau regulate this? I would leave it to the W3C or some other Internet consortium. Remember, free speech is a guaranteed right of Western countries only, for the most part. Look at China, for example.
It's the same as you not paying your phone bill, then suing the phone company for not allowing your friends to call you. I call BS on this.
So Mr. Citron wants VoIP to not be regulated as a voice service, but as a data service. But says that blocking his data service is censorship of free speech? So if my ISP blocks me from accessing IRC, is that censorship of free speech? They are both data services right? Make you your mind Mr. Citron! ( I should note that I am a Vonage user, and dislike the blocking, but I do find this comical. )
"Free speech" has been watered down once again. Its sad to see constitutional rights prostituted by CEOs as a way to make the stock holders happy.
I can't stand the idea of port blocking by ISPs. Already my ISP (Telus in BC, Canada) blocks port 25 so that I can't use my work's SMTP mail server for sending email and I'm forced to use their smtp server. This causes headaches for me as I have a laptop for home and work that I have to reconfigure each time.
It's criminal that they can charge me for providing an Internet connection, and then limiting it's use like that.
Doesn't such selective conetnt filtering make them lose that status? Sounds like bad mojo for them.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
ISPs shouldn't be required to support VOIP, any more than they're required to support email, FTP, or any other service. An ISP should be free to choose the services that it wishes to support, and a customer can then choose an ISP that offers the services that he desires. If VOIP is a good thing, then customers will punish ISPs that don't support it. If it's bad, then VOIP will die (as is natural in a competitive marketplace). The VOIP cry of censorship is just an attempt to get legislative backing for a business model.
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
So if I block VoIP at my border routers and at my CI's does that mean I am censoring free speech? No it just means my organization doesn't use VoIP and doesn't need to have associated ports open to allow that traffic through. So is disallowing my internal phone system to make international calls censorship of free speech as well?
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
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.
No, it's a commercial entity telling you how you can use their network. Don't like it? Give your money to someone who will allow it.
Port blocking of VoIP traffic, he opined, is a step down a slippery slope that could lead to network owners blocking content or Web sites they disagreed with.
As much as I disagree with ISPs blocking any sort of traffic they do have every right to do so as you are using their network and unfortunately for most people you are *usually* under no contract of service w/the ISP that says they cannot stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
Content providers already effectively block content they don't want you to see. There have been reports of ISPs blocking traffic on ports 6881 to 6889 and trackers requiring you to use different ports (see http://tmnsp.net as they require you to use alternate ports because of this). Comcast (the largest consumer broadband ISP) doesn't offer Usenet access except through a third party. Other ISPs don't offer ALL Usenet groups - they are keeping you from some content!
"The FCC could come out and institute the largest possible fine they could, with the sternest of statements saying, 'this will not be tolerated,' " Citron said. "That might send a strong enough message."
Or the large conglomerate providers, who already have the FCC in their pockets, could just pay the FCC off and tell them to ignore the problem. I don't see this solving anything.
Personally, I think Vonage should make their software impossible to trace. Yeah it could make the quality/speed take a hit but it would protect them. They can't ban ALL traffic or no one would use the service. Pipe the shit over 443 and be done w/it.
"It'd be unfortunate to have to pass a law [against port blocking and other types of interference], but we may have to," Citron said. Though he said he has previously testified against the need for port-blocking regulation, Citron may now change that tune, especially if more network operators start using port-blocking or other techniques to selectively control Internet traffic.
The implications are too far reaching. I wouldn't be able to block spammers and hackers from hitting my machine because Vonage can't sell their VoIP service?
"What are people using broadband to do? Communicate," Citron said. "They [network operators who block VoIP] are restricting your ability to communicate with another person. And that's censorship."
People are using broadband to download porn, POP email from their ISP, and CNN.com from the web. As long as they can do that people will be happy. Find and partner with ISPs that will allow your traffic and point possible (and current) users in that direction but certainly don't believe it will stop an ISP like Comcast from blocking your ports. They have millions of subscribers who are clueless (just like Comcast wants them). If you think that anything less than a good percentage of Comcast would make them change their ways, you've got another thing coming.
Welcome to the future of conglomerate communication control!
ISPs already block other ports, such as ftp and web servers to prevent users from attracting more bandwidth to their network. Is this any different? The act of port blocking isn't any different, so I wonder if the content going over the port (in this case, voip) would make a difference in court.
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.
No need to read all the comments. Just realize that in any article relating to censorship, you'll have three kinds of posts:
1) Vocabulary pedants reminding you that only governments can censor and that ____ isn't government censorship.
2) Replies to vocabulary pedants claiming that any sufficiently powerful and/or monopolistic entity hindering communications isn't functionally different than government censorship.
3) People suggesting that Linux be deployed as a remedy.
when they charge $30-something a month?
afterall, they have shown thus far they have done an outstanding job protecting free speech thus far. nevermind those pesky, soon-to-be, $500k fines for subjective indecency ...
vodka, straight up, thank you!
VoIP packet blocking/tagging is the subject of Cringely's latest column .
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree. If an ISP provides any sort of Spam blocking protection, they are voluntarily providing a service which would generally be considered A Good Thing, even though it would fall under the same symptoms as what we are discussing now. The only difference is that now it is an unwanted feature. Furthermore, I have yet to see an ISP that gives you a choice as to whether you want to use their spam services or not, assuming you use the program that provides email through the ISP. I suppose in that instance, to choose not to use the ISP-supplied email service on the basis that you want to be free of their oppressive spam protection is one's possible way of voicing protest over the ISP's ability to block traffic at will. Getting back to the point at hand, there is no equivalent statement you could make, short of not using the ISP altogether. My point is this: When you sign up with an ISP, you are limited to the terms and restrictions you are required to initial prior to use. Should the ISP decide to change those terms, or enact a new policy based on the interpretation of those policies, your choice is to either gut it out, or pack it up. It's a crappy ultamatim, but is the nature of most large communications (phones, internet, etc) companies. The difference here is, as I believe has been made in an earlier post, is that this is not coming from the government. Ergo, while you are able to disconnec your service in protest of such a policy, which is not truly censorship by definition, but feels close to it, you may not really do the same if the government decided to enact a law to violate your liberties. That is, unless you are of the same mind as about 51% of the rest of your constituents, but even then, the process must wait until the next election. Summary: The ISP's can do whatever they want. IT's their picnic. If you don't like it, leave. If enoug people leave, they may rethink their decision to cut off certain services. But this is in no way censorship. This is a big business protecting it's own interests, which is not quite the same thing, due mostly in part to your ability to choose to go to another provider, (from cable to DSL, etc.)
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
This is something I've worried could happen for a long time.
With my current Internet connection, I can go anywhere. I can connect to Slashdot on port 80. I can ssh into my server. I can view Microsoft's webpage. I can view Red Hat's page. In short, I can pretty much connect to anything on the Internet I want.
What's to stop ISPs from restricting this? I don't think it's going to happen, but I'm not so confident that it will never happen. I believe some markets, such as web access on cell phones, already do what I'm describing.
You might have one monthly access fee to be able to hit certain webpages. You can get CNN, Yahoo, and Hotmail for one low fee! For another $10 a month, you get Slashdot, Microsoft, and Google. And for only another $25 a month, you can go anywhere on the Internet that you want!
I don't see any evidence that it's happening today. But has anyone else worried that this might, one day, be the case?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Censorship is blocking somthing based on its content. Blocking calls that contained foul language would be censorship. Blocking ALL voip calls is not censorship.
It may be anti-competitive behavior, it may put their common-carrier status at risk and it sounds like improper behavior, but it is not censorship.
Free speech, as protected by our Constitution, refers to content, not form. VOIP restrictions are completely unrelated.
(Also, free-speech is only protected from infringement by *government*.)
Just because someone has an ability to do something, it is not the same as having the right, morally, ethically, legally or otherwise, to do so.
;)
Internet service can be viewed just as phone service is -- as a common carrier device. If a phone company were to block certain incoming or outgoing calls without your prior autorization simply because they can and don't want you to, for example, contact a competing company to set up service with them, they'd find themselves in a HUGE pile of doo-doo.
In this case, and I may be reading this wrong, but they are blocking a type of internet traffic for no reason other than to be anti-competitive. This harms the consumer. And before you start saying "well then they should just move to a different ISP!" there are times then they are the only broadband game in town and as such could be found to be abusing monopoly power... that's yet another big pile of doo-doo they don't want to find themselves in or else they'll end up like Microsoft and... oh wait, nevermind that is a bad example isn't it.
But seriously, if they begin blocking types of service that customers have access to, then it's time to examine the terms of service at the very least... but I think someone from the DoJ should be peeking into this affair.
This should not be considdered censorship under the legal definition, since telco's are private componies and are not subject to the First Ammendment. It is, however, a false advertising issue. If an ISP claims to offer access to the Internet, you should get full access to the tcp/ip stack and a real contactable IP. NAT breaks the democracy of the Internet by not allowing nodes to be servers. Port blocking keeps you from experiencing all kinds of features.
If a buisness says they are an internet provider, they should sell sell access to the internet. If they don't, they are decieving customers, who should expect to be able to use the same wide array of services anyone with a real internet connection can. I would like the market to simply sort all this out. In a real free market, dissatisfied users could just sign up for a better ISP. In the real world, users are too stupid (they think they have "AOL which is the same as teh interweb" ). In the real world, monopolies control local telecommunications access and set prices. We need courts to define what access to the internet is.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
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.
Modify the ATA's to start at port 1 and go to port 1024 (or higher) when connecting to Vonages' servers. They will need to modify their server software to listen for incoming connections on whatever port range (excluding 80 and whatever other specific ports they need for things).
:)
Lets see the ISP's block ports 1 through 1024!
Forget all the fancy DNS routing crap I've seen in here. This sounds (at least on the surface) much more simple..
Of course, right here I could be showing how little I know about TCP/IP type stuff anyway..
bork bork bork!
the Isps own the modem software that is loaded (assuming dsl or cable). It become trivial to block differing ports on a per site basis.
The only real answer is to take this to court and/or get laws passed prohibiting the FCC and the large ISPs from doing this
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If industry groups are allowed to determine what constitutes acceptable use of Internet traffic, its not just IP blocking for phone users that's at stake. Hell, I'm sure the RIAA would love to just do away with music on the net altogether. (Not to mention the MPAA). Bible thumpers would love to put an end to porn. And old ink&paper publishers would love to get rid of the whole kit & kaboodle.
The point is that preventing certain communications because of corporate agendas or industry expedience is anti-competitive and is an effort to preserve business models that have been outmoded by the development of IP.
This can not be allowed to happen.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
IP as in Internet Protocol or IP as in Intellectual Property. I tell ya kids... someday we're going to TLA ourselves into a language that means nothing and says multiple things all at once. I'm getting old.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Who is doing the port blocking? Spill the beans, already!
That's interesting...
What exactly, if you don't mind explaining, are the benefits and legal parameters of "common carrier" status?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
My isp, comcast, specifically, for the entry level cable modem account, PROHIBITS in the AUP the use of servers for the end user.
(with comcast pro, this can be waved)
Do you not consider the hardware reciving input when a voip customer recieves a call on the end users machine to not be within the definition of a server? or do you think that this portion of an AUP is illegal, and therefore should be ignored? ala civil disobedience- or a third possibility I haven't considered.
I'd like to know- comcast reserves the right to block ports when customers are found running servers....
whats your response to that?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
But this is in no way censorship. This is a big business protecting it's own interests
It is censorship, just censorship based upon the technology you use, not upon the content of your speech. If your school burned all books written on off-white colored paper, that would still be censorship, just not based on criteria that make any sense to the average person.
When I sign up with an ISP, they are a common carrier, with special immunities and responsibilities. If they want to restrict spam coming through their mail server, it is no different qualitatively than restricting all calls from overseas. It is fine, so long as the user agrees to it and is informed. If they decide no one can get calls from china, and just stop delivering those calls, that is censorship.
To make a third, and final point; ISPs are in many cases government enforced local monopolies. If the government makes it illegal for anyone else to run data lines across town and to my home, then they also have a responsibility to insure that communications across those lines are not censored, otherwise that is censorship by an organization appointed by the government as the only option. Given our corrupt and broken system, I have little doubt that it would take fifty years to get such a case through the court system, but it does not change the fact that it is censorship.
See my above comments about local monopolies. Allow me to provide a slight alteration of your above assertion, "...is not quite the same thing, due mostly in part to your ability to choose to go to another method, (from written to sign language, etc.)"
Would you agree that restricting actually speaking in public is not censorship, since you can always write your comments down or use sign language? I know I don't.
An excellent argument for encrypting packet contents. The Internet's function is to route digital data to its destination. That's all! Same for the telecom companies that provide Internet connections. I wish someone with more authority and a bigger stick than I have would remind them of this simple fact.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The FCC and Local communities have granted monopoly status to the phone company and to the cable companies.
Yet, they both intrude on each others space, but are actively seeking to prevent any other competitors from coming in. The best thing that can happen is that the FCC needs to limit the monopoly status from CO/green boxes to the house and then allow total competition in the other space. A company then has to decide which part of the equation they are on; The delivery to the house, or the service (ISP, TV, Phone, etc). IOW companies such as comcast would be broken up into 2 companies.
Until we limit the monopoly status to the smallest part and allow true free market competition to exists, we will continue to have nightmares over this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
"Censorship" and "Free Speech" do not automatically mean there's a First Amendment issue.
It is true that the Bill of Rights protects us from government action only... it does not follow that the government is the only entity that can restrict your rights, and thus the only one that should be controlled.
Mr. Citron is saying that Congress (or some other part of the government) should act to protect our rights... not that the Constitution already does.
It is anti-competitive behavior. Which means if it's being done by one of the Baby Bell's he could probably get them to stop with the threat of legal problems.
However there is nothing in the law which states your compediters have to facilitate you doing business. The only reason most people think it's illegal is they believe the special rules that apply to monopolies apply to everyone instead of just monopolies.
Even if he was a lawyer, his conclusion is specious given the fact that Internet providers are not government agencies. If free speech was not subject to contract law, then there'd be no such thing as non-disclosure agreements. If you pick an Internet provider the prevents you from using VOIP, then that's what you get. If you don't like it pick somebody else.
The exception to my statement is situations where there is monopoly power in a given market. If your only option for high speed internet is one company, then I think that company may have a higher obligation to open up to competitors for VOIP traffic.
In the end, I suspect companies that make a habit of forcing people to use their VOIP will simply drive customers to other Internet providers.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Here VoIP is forbidden due to stupid regulations. There might be VoIP, but it'll be provided by... guess who? The major phone companies >:(
The giants won't surrender that easily...
The VOIP cry of censorship is just an attempt to get legislative backing for a business model.
Hogwash.
If Qwest told you that you could not use a Mac or linux in order to use their service, and that you had to use a Windows PC, would you sit there and take it? If Qwest said you could not use your own email but are required to use AOL would you sit there and take it?
If Qwest said "I'm sorry you cannot use Vonage/Skype/etc on our network, but you can use our service which costs you $40 a month!"
This is anti-competitive and should be illegal! This is the oil company also controlling the railroad company and the railroad company preventing competing oil companies from shipping, thus driving the oil company out of business. It's no different.
It's like a TV that can only pick up one network that it's tied to. I don't want to be stuck watching ABC and nothing else, I want to pick and chose my channels.
Blocking traffic based on a competing company should be illegal, plain and simple. An ISP provides a means of transporting data to you. When they become large and start using their market power to leverage other services while preventing competition by other services... well by jove I believe somewhere in the anti-trust acts there is already something that makes that illegal... though IANAL.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Here's a link to ZDnet's updated coverage of the Vonage port-blocking fiasco.
The ISP is identified, and apparently the FCC did get involved with fines.
Are Telcos and ISP going to put so much pressure out there so that no other new/better technology can exsist or even be born? Where are the super cars that get 100MPG at 100MPH (as reported about in Popular Science in the early 90's)? They are dead in the water, because the oil industry would take a KO blow from the loss of continual insane riches they already receive. They use there money and power to stomp out better technology and anything that would hurt their bottom line.
I have Vonage at home and at my office. I love it. It is cost effective and clear and I don't have to pay extra for features. I did notice that when I logged into my account online last week, they had a notice to 4 major cities: Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis/St.Paul and one other (I can't remember). This notice was to explain that local Telco's were blocking service and may cause outages and that they were working on this issue. I know that QWest controls the metro DSL lines in Minneapolis/St. Paul. There are a variety of ISP using those line to supply internet. I know that Comcast and RoadRunner are the Cable Modem suppliers in the same area. I can't get pin point who was doing it, but I wouldn't put it by Qwest by any means.
We are already seeing this. This is the main reason the CEO had to speak out about it.
I have seen where Verizon has caused outages to smaller ISPs providing internet to Verizon controled DSL lines that they are reselling by having "troubles and line outages. The outages were only to the lines used by none Verizon internet clients.
Why can't they just play nice?
Film makers are the reason we pull our feet back when something brushes against them.
I can't comment on what the legal parameters are but one of the benefits is a level of legal immunity.
If my child stumbles across some pornographic site on the web, it would be unlikely that I'd be able to squeeze any cash out of the ISP for presenting the material to her. They will argue "We're a common carrier, we don't limit or scrutinize the information you access through us so we have no way of protecting you or your child from any information you may be presented with" or some such.
If they were to start censoring information presented to customers it is conceivable that they could be required to uphold community standards. They are no longer a "common carrier".
Other examples of common carriers:
Phone companies (not liable for criminal activity or operations that violate local community standards, like phone sex)
Mail Carriers - Not liable for illegal or community standard violating material.
=Shreak
Where does that come from? There's nothing in the definition that says that, editors can censor a book, TV producers can censor their shows, etc.
I'm not sure if I'd go as far as saying it's censoring free speech, granted I don't think it's right (and maybe I'd consider it anti competitive) but I wouldn't call it supressing free speech. Vonage is strange, they're not a telephone company (despite what ever they say) they are an unregulated information service. They fought with the FCC over that, now they want to go cry wolf and say that their calls can't be completed and are being blocked. Hmm interesting, perhaps the FCC should look over their 911 service again.
The product that they provide is an addition, not a substitiution to a landline (right now at least), there's 911 service, but its not the best (and in some places it routes to call centers not designed for emergency calls, not to mention that it has to be setup see this.) If the broadband connection goes down so does your phone line, not to mention the sporadic outages that occur (like the one that I had with it two days ago, could make calls, would ring, once RTP opened up ATA would go busy... interesting.) Regardless, it's a cool service, not meant for prime time, but great for offloading calls that otherwise you'd have to pay for, or using with cell phones (call follow me/auto call forwarding), etc. Not something that I'd give to a 90 year old grandmother and say "good luck."
Is it right, no, does it impeade on free speech, no. As an ISP they can do whatever they want, ISP's can filter whatever they want maybe not ethically but they can still do it. My advice for those with the offending ISP, hit them where it hurts, and switch (if possible.)
Take the logical step the opposite direction. If they have shown an ability and willingness to block a certian kind of traffic, then they have the ability to block other, probably illegal, kinds of traffic. I.e. gnutella/bittorrent. Hence, RIAA can sue them instead of the end users.
By sniffing into the content of the data steam said ISP is no longer a common carrier and can and IMHO should be held by law liable for other such content brought to their attention or reasonable attention. So any P2P networks data should also be blockaded. That "common carrier" state is what was keeping ISPs from being sued in the neo-napster lawsuits and what they are doing with VIOP is taking action that disqualifies them from being a common carrier: concerning themselves with what their customers are doing and acting on it.
I hope for freedoms sake RIAA puts them out of business. It's either all permitted or resitricted to the fullest extent of the law, not what makes you competitively advantageous.
--Shemnon
Using VoIP really isn't providing a server or services to others outside the premises, unless the person using Comcast was hosting a VoIP server or gateway. This section is meant to prevent people from running servers that will have people outside the premises using Comcast's bandwidth for their own use. If you're running an FTP server, you can have lots of people from other networks using Comcast's bandwidth to trade files. How is VoIP different from running an FTP Client? Consider that the FTP server actually connects back to the client to transfer files before you answer... In the very least, what in that section would lead you to believe that VoIP would be blocked?
Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls
Easy shmeezy.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Check your VoIP service contract. I bet there's a clause in there that disavows the use of the service for "lifeline" applications such as 911--even though you do have 911 access. Vonage, Packet8 et al. are well aware this type of thing may happen.
I know of one large cable provider that occasionally and unintentionally catches VoIP packet streams in their DDoS prevention systems. Their network architects are actively working with VoIP equipment manufacturers and service providers to tune these systems better.
Just because someone has an ability to do something, it is not the same as having the right, morally, ethically, legally or otherwise, to do so.
Not to dispute your your statement, but that's precisely what Jack Valenti (boo! hiss!) has said about every form of media copying and trasmission technology since the invention of the audio cassette.
On the other hand, motion picture studios and the MPAA don't qualify as common carriers, either.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
While I think that VoIP blocking is really bad, calling it "censorship" has the wrong connotations. The term "censorship" suggests that a government prohibits a publication because it does not like the content; sometimes it is used for closely analogous private actions, but it really implies and organized effort by a very powerful entity to suppress ideas and ideologies. Censorship is not the suppression of technologies that might ruin one's business.
What VoIP blocking is is reprehensible anti-competitive behavior. Even if it is carried out by a government, it is not censorship.
Now, the same technology used for VoIP blocking can also be used for censorship. But there is no "slippery slope" there--the technology already exists and it will become a standard part of the Internet. The question is how it is going to be used, but confusing "censorship" and "anti-competitive behavior" is not going to help us in that debate. For example, while I don't like anti-competitive behavior, I still prefer a government telecommunications monopoly to private censorship, and those are choices we could face.
on a regular basis, and IMHO this is basically the same difference. They want to charge for the unnatural "server" designation to unblock these ports. It's more of the same, business telling the customer what they can do with the product they buy.
expandfairuse.org
Parent is correct, to whatever person thought they could stick their fingers in their ears by modding it down.
Censorship does not apply to this situation in the slightest. All I want to know is where's the line to get a CEO's salary with the rampant incompenance we keep hearing about.
Who is the ISP involved? Are we talking a major provider of pipe, or are we talking small fish? Someone in this esteemed crowd *must* know who it is and also be willing to spill....
I wonder if Verizon is pulling a "fast one"? My phone # xfer was sent to Verizon on Jan 6. Yes, it has been ~ 2 months since I requested a phone # xfer to vonage. Can Verizon just sit on this request? I hope the law prevents that.
I wouldn't be able to block spammers and hackers from hitting my machine because Vonage can't sell their VoIP service?
Umm... Are you a common carrier?
Perhaps you provide internet connection to consumers?
I dunno... Letting your neighbors war ride your wireless router doesn't really count as being an ISP. Even if you are an admin at a large company, unless you specifically sell internet access over wires you own (or rent) then I don't think this applies to you.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
[Discl.: I'm from the EU and not the US, but similar tactics are used by ISPs here.]
:)
/. how-much-free-market-is-good :-)
The logical next step would be for trojan writers to say that blocking ports that their trojans use is *also* censorship.
You compare trojans with VOIP. Because trojans are intrusive and illegal bits of code. At the same time, you are ok with the ISP interfering with your IP packets by blocking them depending on their content. Yes, the port number can be considered as content. The same way as you I could argue that we'd soon end at OSI level 7 (application) filtering. Couldn't I?
As it is often the case for infrastructure (in a wider sense), the free market won't work here. There is lack of information on the consumer side.
Joe Sixpack is uniformed about these issues. That doesn't mean that he's stupid. Just uninformed. And if the issue is solved politically by setting standards for this product "IP connectivity" (transparent and visible for Joe!), no one really loses.
Personally, I would compare this to food safety standards.
I do know alot about the IP protocol, routing in the internet, bits&bytes etc.pp.
But I don't know a lot about the ingredients of my frozen pizza.
Surely, if there'd be a free unregulated market for food, I could go and buy food but only if I sign a contract with the supplier that there is no machine oil in the pizza, that the tomatoes used were fresh anough, that the number of bacteria don't exceed a certain value and so on. This would end in studying datasheets for food! Maybe even MSDS ones and I don't want to do that!
And this would only be possible if the pizza company gives me this information. If it does not, I have to search for another producer of pizzas which does.
Of course you can argue that one can built up trust, e.g. "food safety labels" which set a certain standard. Essentially proxies who decide which food you can buy. But what would you gain by doing that?
Less bureaucracy, more efficiency? Surely not. You'd have competing food safety labels ("This ISP supports raw IP labels") and an intransparency because of of different kinds of labels.
Don't get me wrong, labels can be a good thing and a first step in the right direction (for example for ISPs). But I don't think regulating IP connectivity by simply requiring that an ISP just passes data through it's network - without controlling which connections can be made, what data has to flow - has any economic impacts except for the ISPs shareholders.
Sorry for this long post, I really got carried away in the usual
It was a North Caroline ISP. This was announced today. So the FCC felt they had the authority to intervene and that might be a good thing. The cencorship/free speech argument is very weak. I'm sure that's not the reason the FCC fined this company. The Vonage CEO should look for better lawyers, or they are going to be out of business soon.
The one question that is isn't too clear is that what happens if the companies are either:
A.) Government regulated. (See Airlines)
B.) Goverment sponsored. (See power companies and farmers)
C.) Government allowed monopolies (see telcos)
Can those companies promote specific religions? Can they censor critics of the government? Can they make suggestions on who to vote for?
These are questions that should be asked.
If a telco was receiving money from the government or by some government mandate they were allowed to exist then they should be somehow accountable to the same rules as government.
Otherwise you might up up with oppression through proxy in which the govenrment sets up a large corporation to restrict the rights of it's people indirectly.
Although, I don't think this is really the case... Just something to consider.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
First of all, this Citron guy is clearly an idiot, making comments like "Until a market becomes free and becomes developed, sometimes you may have to put in place government regulations that allow for the market to develop." I'm not sure I would ever agree with that statement, but especially in this case, the ISP / internet market is very well-developed and is only being hampered by more and more burdensome regulation (such as recent court decrees subjecting them to political speech-limiting laws.)
The free speech argument is clearly bogus. I guess we have to keep repeating this over and over, but freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed prohibition against the government from banning or penalizing certain viewpoints or certain opinions. We need to defend true freedom of speech to the death, but freedom of speech does not obligate any company to carry any particular information or to espouse any particular viewpoint. Freedom of speech does not obligate newpapers to print stories that they disagree with, or obligate ISPs to carry traffic that they don't want to carry.
What's sad is that Citron could have used a slightly different argument to hurt the ISPs where it counts: liability. ISPs are given broad immunity to liability by being given "common carrier" status - as long as they don't discriminate between packets or content or exercise editorial control over what they cover, they can't be held liable in defamation cases, for damage caused by information sent over the internet, for copyright infringment posted by one person or another, etc. But now they are discriminating against certain types of messages by blocking VOIP, and those that do so should lose their "common carrier" status and thus be exposed to liability for anything that travels across their networks.
A court ruling affirming this would open up VOIP traffic faster than you could find a picture of Anna Kournikova on the internet.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
it happens all the time with P2P traffic. ISP are getting more reestrictive. ISPs are looking for providing advanced services like VoD and VoIP. how would you call comcast ? ISP ?
Rogers and Shaw in Canada install traffic filters and shapers and limit monthly amout of bandwidth by 60G (up+down). I guess VoD service when bought from Shaw is not going to be capped. as far as you pay $8/view bandwith is unlimited, right ?
Nothing new here. Encrypt the packet, use random ports and probably you will have a chance to use the service
Most broadband providers, at least cable ones, block port 80. Why? Because they want to charge more for you to run 'servers' with your bandwidth. Can we get a class action lawsuit againt them for interfering with my right to free speech? Probably not, their terms of service say you shouldn't be running any 'servers' in a loosely defined way. Is my IM client a server? Is that VOIP Client a server? It's got open ports, and listens for people to connect...
As a lot of others have pointed out, most of us have the choice of broadband with similar restrictions, or one of many dialup options. Just not acceptable. I at least have a choice between DSL or Cable, if one gets too bad.
Got Apathy?
I don't see the government stepping in and stopping VOIP, so it's not a free speech issue. First Amendment issues refer to the government abridging public speech. This is decidedly private speech, carried over non-public conduits. Everyone who owns transmission lines is free to carry or not carry what they want. If I own 5,000 miles of fiber-optic cable and decide it won't carry VOIP, who is going to infringe on MY rights to do with my property as I see fit?
The possible exception is someone covered under a "common carrier" regulation, requiring them to not discriminate against content... but, if the government decides to require that, how are they going to justify it when they want to regulate things like kiddie porn?
You are entitled to run the following "server ports" and not yet fall into a AUP-definition of a server.
1. SSH
2. H.323/Netmeeting
3. DNS
4. NTP
5. LDAP
6. TALK/NetTalk
The grey areas of servers that most ISP are struggling with are the potentially "bandwidth-intensive" servers such as:
1. Web server, authenticated (i.e. Family web)
2. FTP server, authenticated
3. SMTP server, TLS/SSL
4. SIP (aka VoIP)
5. Instant Messaging Server (i.e. Jabber)
The definite (or should be) no-nos are:
1. Web server, open
2. FTP, anonymous
3. SMTP server, un-authenticated (or worse, SMTP open-relay)
4. Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
5. NNTP
6. P2P VoIP (aka Skype)
Now, throw enough products on the market/Internet such as eDonkey/Sharaza/Gnutella/Skype, achieve mass appeal/domination, and then the ISP would have no choice but to support them.
I'm certainly no expert in this topic, but don't think the issue of censorhip will get very far. As others have correctly noted, the ISP provides a service; you, as the consumer, can choose to use that service or not. Even the question of viable alternatives is moot, because *nothing* requires you to have Internet access. It's not a "right". It's a privilege, and one that you can choose to pay for... or not. Your choice. However, I think there is still an issue with this, though not with the FCC. An ISP choosing to block VOIP traffic could be said to be interfering with Interstate Commerce. From either the perspective of Vonage or a company using VOIP isn't this nothing more than restraint of trade? If I am correct, then this is a significantly bigger issue. Thoughts? JR
You're right! After reading your well reasoned and delivered counterpoint, I completely understand and agree with your stated position.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I'm a vonage user. I signed up a month ago and i'm still waiting for my POTS phone number to be converted over to vonage.
My ISP (optonline.net AKA cablevision) has their own VOIP service known that costs $34 a month. Vonage costs $24 a month.
Cablevision is getting really flakey on their capping/throttling policy. They of course wont promise any quality of service, they do block ports etc.
Blocking vonage has been the concern of many optonline users, due to vonage being more affordable than optonline's own optimum voice VOIP service.
Cablevision loves to play games due to the power they hold in the number of subscribers. Everyone here in New York remembers the whole Yankee YES network mess where cablevision refused to carry YES and charge their subscribers $2 extra per month. YES is now on cablevision FREE, no additional charge.. but cablevision seems to have no problem with squeezing their existing customers into their digital io plan which costs $10 more than basic cable... but of course requires a box, and of course several boxes for how many tv's you happen to own. Cablevision really wants everyone to pay $90 a month for their digital cable service. The evidence is in that they are no longer supporting HBO customers that use the old cable boxes.
Point is.. Cable companies have power and they can use it as they see fit to benefit their own interests. Even at the cost of holding their subscribers hostage.
It's simple math really.
Pay for cable broadband + Pay for competing VoIP service = You paid for your own dam right to free speech.
Afterall we're all forced to sign these stupid contracts with ISP's that simply allow them to dictate their service and giving us shit power in return... I think its best we use the big stick of the government to bat their asses back into line because as consumers, even in large numbers as subscribers... are simply powerless due to their service contracts and the monopolistic advantages these corperations have over our regions. In other words... There usually isn't regional competition. And if there are... they're pulling the same bullshit.
The vonage CEO is correct. It is a free speech issue. Its also a consumer protection issue. Its also a monopoly issue, a corperate dictatorship anti competitive issue... Its a federal communications issue... Its a civil rights issue.
VoIP is a cheaper alternative to the telephone industries tight grip on the bullshit they overcharge us for.
The cable/DSL ISP's that are blocking VoIP are trying to maintain their own tight grip on the bullshit they overcharge us for. Vonage is a great example of this as it is $10 cheaper than my own isp's voip service.
I'm in two minds about this. I think Vonage is very quick to fly the "Free Speech" flag and look for support from civil libertarians (and libertarians), but there's a couple of pieces missing from that picture. First is that Vonage recently admitted that they would co-operate with government spy agencies to provide backdoors. (See the VoIP panel report from SCALE3x
The second is that Vonage is looking to piggyback it's own private service over the back of an infrastructure created to allow all of us to communicate cheaply with each other: the internet. They don't have a god-given right to use it and they're using bandwidth shared by all of us (and often provided by heavy government subsidy using our tax dollars) for their own profit. Whining about how they're not allowed to use this for their own purposes makes about as much sense as Spam Kings whining about their Free Speech being suppressed.
On the other hand it's obviously the case that long-distance phone calls are vastly overpriced and could be done cheaper and provide many more interesting services than the current oligopolists are doing.
The article can be found here
The ISP is selling Internet service to the customer. The customer has a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that the service will be usable for ALL (non harming) Internet uses. Punitive port filtering is not only bad, it could leave the ISP that does it vulnerable for a HUGE lawsuit if for example their port blocking (which was done with no advance notification to the customer) resulted in bodily harm because the subscriber could reach police, fire, etc. But, if I read the consent decree above, arbitrary port blocking for punitive purposes has now been judged illegal by the FCC.
Weren't there some laws passed a few years ago reclassifying some types of high-speed internet connections as "information" systems instead of "telecommunications" systems? Would telecom regulations even apply to these now, regardless of whether they should or not?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Did you read your terms of service with your ISP? ISPs (with the exception of some like Speakeasy that make a selling point of it) generally all have exceptions int the TOS for port blocking and anything else they think they might need. So it's not fraud at all.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Does this mean that because if yout email provider does some sort of spam filtering, if they miss pornographic spam and your daughter gets it, you can sue your mailprovider?
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
How else would you have it work?
Well, when I turn up service in a new location on our region-wide VoIP network, I make sure there's a 911 trunk from my VoIP/PSTN switch directly to the PSAP (the technical name) in that service area.
...you have to ASK for that. The Telcos don't explicitly block them at their discretion. They can't do that and keep their common carrier status.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas