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
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
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!
...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?
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.
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.
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. )
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
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.
No, but I heard my ISP was going to start blocking access to slashd [CarrierLost]
liqbase
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
Authenticated SMTP on Port 587 Is your friend, even better if it is on a Server that supports Start TLS so you can encrypt it. We block outgoing (25) from any of our dynamic ranges as it cuts down on the crap that comes from the owned boxes in Terms of Direct to MX spam and Virii. I use this setup on my laptop and have had no problems going between cafe's, hotel's etc...
To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @
The difference is role. The ISP's job is to give you a chunk of raw bandwith. You can send data to, and recieve data on any port you like so long as you're not doing something malicious, idiotic, or illegal. That's what the customers signed up for, so that's what they should get.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls
The article can be found here