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.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rt.com/man/portmap.8.html

Right not in DNS, but rather the host service.

Maybe we should just IPSec wrap all communications.

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

[Soko]

BIND 9 and the DNS server portion of Microsoft Active Directory(TM) already have this - they're call srv records. Check the RFC or see for yourself here.

Soko

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')

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

[merreborn]

It's called a Well Known Service record (WKS). Actually, rfc 1033 defines the WKS a little differently from what you've purposed. Either way, the whole concept would only make blocking a given port harder, not impossible. If the world can read your DNS records to determine which port the services they need are on, so can your ISP.

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

[MBGMorden]

Unless of course the system was designed with rotating ports protected by a secure key. Imagine that when you sign up you are given a software key by Vonage or whatever other service provider. Whenever your client connects to the DNS server it will pass the request + a key. The DNS server will respond with a random port, which will accept a connection (from a client with your certified key) for the next 10 minutes. If you don't connect within that time or have to reconnect it'll just generate a new port number. If the ISP tried to query them then they would either a) not get a response at all for not having a key, or b) even if they did have a key, they would be assigned a DIFFERENT port than you.

Of course one wonders how long until they just filtered out connections to a specific IP, but that's another issue.

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

[junelson]

The ISPs don't need to port block. They can block at the application layer. Numerous solutions exist out there to shape traffic at the application layer, including recognizing the RTP traffic associated with a SIP call.

I don't think the big guys will block VOIP. They don't need to. If they prioritize their in-house VOIP traffic and then just treat the BYOV (Bring Your Own Voip) traffic as normal web - or perhaps even a lower level, the call experience will not be as good on the BYOV as the in-house. Bundle this with their marketing power, triple play capabilities, and power backup (the cable companies are already building out power backup), and they won't need to block it - the "market" will work it out for them.

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

[arkanes]

Ooh, private network. Good point. I guess all the telcos better give back all that funding and the tax breaks and the eminent domain right-of-way and everything else that they got because they were making something of public benefit. There are very few large corporations, and none that built, build, or maintain nationwide infrastructure, that can make a non-laughable claim that their network is "private". Hell, strictly speaking, the *only* reason corporations are even allowed to exist as legal concepts is to provide societal benefit. It's right there in the legislation.

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

[An Onerous Coward]

"It is a private network?" Please. If a phone company started monitoring my phone calls in order to find out which brand of corn flakes I prefer, nobody would defend them by saying, "Well, it's their system."

The Internet is becoming a critical enabler of free speech, and if those who carry Internet traffic are going to start unduly mucking about with the packets I send, then it's time to make them stop.

You would have a point, if VOIP actually consumed mammoth amounts of bandwidth, or otherwise disrupted service for everyone. But it doesn't. Certainly there are much more pressing bandwidth hogs to go after. Anyways, all the quality of service issues that might be relevant to this could be handled by using simple traffic shaping against heavy users, without regard to what functions the traffic was serving.

Essentially, you're saying that if the Internet can do something, but your ISP would make more money if you were doing it a different way, it has the right to keep you from doing it over the Internet.

Free Speech?

[ackthpt]

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.

IANAL, but I don't think HIAL either.

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?

leave it to the market

[fatjesus]

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

Re:leave it to the market

[NeoSkandranon]

That only works given two conditions:

1) a significant number of people are not only aware of the issue but actually care about it.

2) a significan subset of 1) have a viable option to switch *to*

Re:leave it to the market

[fatcatman]

That's right, more and more we just don't have options. IMHO, this is akin to the phone company blocking access to certain numbers because they just don't want to route them. How would you feel if you weren't allowed to call a phone number you wanted, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because your telephone provider is the only one in town?

ISPs should not be allowed to filter service like this. My DSL provider IS a phone company, about the time VOIP starts eating into their service they can just turn it off and screw me. That's not right, and is a valid reason for federal regulation of ISPs much like phone companies have been regulated for decades.

If port blocking is censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes my Linksys router The Ministry of Truth.

Censorship...

[blenderking]

Only governments censor. This would be anti-competitive. Semantics, yes, but an important distiction nonetheless.

I'm done, carry forward with the conversation.

Re:Censorship...

[shystershep]

Find a dictionary. Not sure where you got the idea that "only governments censor." It's only a First Amendment issue when the government is involved, but that doesn't change the fact that this is censorsihp: namely, an ISP telling you what communications you can send/receive over your connection.

Re:Censorship...

[Omnifarious]

I have begun to think that the distinction between corporations and governments isn't so cut & dried as some people seem to think it is. I think any organization becomes government-like as it grows larger.

Re:Censorship...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Only governments censor. This would be anti-competitive. Semantics, yes, but an important distiction nonetheless.

You are incorrect. First anyone can censor, not just governments. Second, these corporations are given special legal protections by acting on behalf of the government as "common carriers" of communication, and as such are required to maintain impartiality in order to retain that status. An ISP is immune from prosecution for carrying child porn, only so long as it impartially transmits data, regardless of what it is, and does not attempt to police the content of its network. Whichever ISP this is just opened themselves up to prosecution for child porn, copyright infringement, libel, false advertising, etc., etc.

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.

Not "censorship"...

[rkischuk]

...just anti-competitive business practices by entrenched, government-sponsored monopolies. Still bad - but I guess "censorship" elicits the stronger, knee-jerk reacion.

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.

First for a CEO

[Jaguar777]

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.

Common Carrier?

[CarrionBird]

AFIAK ISPs lay claim to "common carrier" status, so they aren't responsible for the content they carry.

Doesn't such selective conetnt filtering make them lose that status? Sounds like bad mojo for them.

Nonsense

[joke-boy]

If I understand the issue, certain ISPs are blocking the ports used by VOIP apps for whatever reason (bandwidth, probably). Assume for the moment that the VOIP complaint is valid. The logical next step would be for trojan writers to say that blocking ports that their trojans use is *also* censorship.

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.

Re:Nonsense

[squiggleslash]

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.

I agree completely. However, if an ISP chooses not to allow certain protocols to operate over the network, then I think they should be prevented from using the word "Internet" in their advertising. I think that's reasonable: if you're not actually going to provide full access to the Internet, why the hell should you be able to imply you do?

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....

[erroneus]

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.

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.

Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

C|Net