VoIP Backlash From Phone Companies

denis-The-menace writes "An article from the online edition of IEEE Spectrum says phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced they will block VoIP calls on their networks. Using new software from Narus Inc., the carriers can detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. Gotta love Ma Bell." From the article: "Narus's software does far more than just frustrate Skype users. It can also diagnose, and react to, denial-of-service attacks and dangerous viruses and worms as they wiggle through a network. It makes possible digital wiretaps, a capability that carriers are required by law to have. However, these positive applications for Narus's software may not be enough to make Internet users warm to its use. 'Protecting its network is a legitimate thing for a carrier to do ... But it's another thing for a Comcast to charge more if I use my own TiVo instead of the personal video recorder they provide, or for Time Warner, which owns CNN, to charge a premium if I want to watch Fox News on my computer.'"

Comments

slashdotted out of the gate

[cagle_.25]

Heh ... I couldn't even RTFA with 0 comments posted. *Sigh*.

Question for the knowledgeable: could VOIP companies invoke the WTO for anti-competitive practices?

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[Anonymous Coward]

The VoIP Backlash
By: Steven Cherry
Internet-based telephony saves consumers money by bypassing traditional carriers--but new software lets the carriers block those pennies-per-minute calls

The convergence of telephony and the Internet is a great thing for consumers. It makes voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) services, such as Vonage, Packet8, and Skype, possible.

In particular, Skype Technologies SA, in London, looms as a dagger poised to cut your phone costs--and your local phone company's profits. With its SkypeOut service, a call anywhere in the world costs about 3 US cents per minute. And when the recipient is also a Skype user, the call is absolutely free.

In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, regulations protect a phone company's revenues, prohibiting customers from saving money by making phone calls using any service other than the national carrier, Saudi Telecom, based in Riyadh. Skype users there have gleefully flouted those regulations, paying cheap local tariffs to access the Internet and use it for their calls, instead of directly using Saudi Telecom's expensive long-distance and international calling services.

Although these Skype calls travel along Saudi Telecom's network, the national carrier had been helpless to prevent the practice--VoIP phone calls were just ordinary data packets, indistinguishable from Web and e-mail traffic. Until now.

A seven-year-old Mountain View, Calif., company, Narus Inc., has devised a way for telephone companies to detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. For example, now when someone in Riyadh clicks on Skype's "call" button, Narus's software, installed on the carrier's network, swoops into action. It analyzes the packets flowing across the network, notices what protocols they adhere to, and flags the call as VoIP. In most cases, it can even identify the specific software being used, such as Skype's.

Narus's software can "secure, analyze, monitor, and mediate any traffic in an IP network," says Antonio Nucci, the company's chief technology officer. By "mediate" he means block, or otherwise interfere with, data packets as they travel through the network in real time.

Another of Narus's Skype-blocking customers is Giza Systems, a consulting company that specializes in information technologies. Giza, which is based in Cairo, Egypt, installed Narus's software on the network of a Middle Eastern carrier in the spring. Nucci wouldn't say which one, but presumably it is Telecom Egypt, the national phone company. Narus already has a close relationship with the carrier, having written the software for its billing system.

The desire to block or charge for VoIP phone calls extends far beyond the Middle East. According to Jay Thomas, Narus's vice president of product marketing, it can be found in South America, Asia, and Europe. International communications giant Vodafone recently announced a plan to block VoIP calls in Germany, Thomas says. A French wireless carrier, SFR, has announced a similar plan for France.

Nor is it just Skype that's at risk. Most international telephone calling cards also use VoIP technology.

In the United States and many other countries, a phone company's common carrier status prevents it from blocking potentially competitive services.

"But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," Thomas says. "So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it."

U.S. broadband-cable companies are considered information services, which by law gives them the right to block VoIP calls. Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Thoma

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[Pentavirate]

I took out the nyud.net:8090 and it worked fine. FYI.

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotted... or Narused?

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[chucks86]

I accidentally clicked the link and was directed to the site right away... Strange thing, this Internet.

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[marsperson]

Probably not, because the behavior being challenged at the WTO would have to be official goverment policy of a state, rather than the action of a private firm. They probably have a better chance going to individual free trade watch dogs in the affected countries.

Indeed, something similar has happened in Chile recently where Voissnet, a chilean company, and an american one challenged major phone company Telefonica's practice of hindering third party VOIP apps. The case is still being processed, but the complaining companies allege unfair trade practices.

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[GuidoW]

Does that mean.... Coral Cache is slashdotted?

Re:slashdotted out of the gate

[SpaceLifeForm]

CoralCache does not work for everyone.

rly?

[gr8gatzby]

If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.

Re:rly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Jack Handy.

The Ringing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://theringingmovie.com

Bell?

[Thu25245]

phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced...Gotta love Ma Bell.

Which RBOCs would those be? BellFrance, German Bell, and Mideast Bell?

Re:Bell?

[pomo monster]

It was just a throwaway comment, like "stand up to the Man." The Man's everywhere, and everywhere there's the phone, there's Ma Bell. Don't freak out about it.

Re:Bell?

[mooingyak]

Which 'Man' are you talking about?

Re:Bell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deutsche Telekom Bell

Re:Bell?

[Dun Malg]

It was just a throwaway comment, like "stand up to the Man." The Man's everywhere, and everywhere there's the phone, there's Ma Bell. Don't freak out about it.

Throwaway or not, it's still stupid. Ma Bell isn't a generic term for phone companies, it's the nickname of "Bell Telephone" AKA the old pre-1984 AT&T. It's as ignorant and lame as calling the shell on a Linux box "MS-DOS".

Re:Bell?

[dawhippersnapper]

Acccctually, since BELL was around before those other "fancy" european countries, it'd be more like calling MS-DOS csh or some other UNIX shell name, you know since UNIX was here before MS-DOS.

Re:Bell?

[Milikki]

Why is it in these days of political correctness and sensitivity we still use outdated phrases like "the man" when it could really be "the woman"?

Kevin

Re:Bell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because only whacked-out, shit-for-brains pussies are into political correctness. - The Man

In a related story......

[8127972]

.... Some phone companies in Canada are tying to brand their services so that they don't sound like they're VoIP because of the negativity associated with these services.

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews /TPStory/LAC/20051020/TWVOIP20/TPTechnology/?query =voip

Re:In a related story......

[gmack]

How sad... If they only dropped their long distance rates people wouldn't care about "digital phone". I don't see what difference the underlying medium makes to their costs at all. Meanwhile primus has introduced a new long distance package that's as cheap as vonage. I can have primus phone service and unlimited North american long distance for $53 CDN so why exactly do I need a VOIP service on top of that? $53 - $27 for the phone service makes the long distance portion of that $26. Vonage charges $39.99 for something of lower quality. I'm seriously considering it.

Re:In a related story......

[elgaard]

They would have to drop their prices to about the price for long distance e-mail

I switched to VoIP and saved 90% on my phone bill. I saved on long distance calls but also because many calls are from IP to IP, which is free.

I pay ca $9/month for internet and $1/month for VoIP phone number (Call-in)

A fixed line is $20/month and the calls much more expensive.

Lets all give a big hug to the phone companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

We call all feel safe that the evil that goes around on the internet will now be zapped out of existance by the all knowing phone companies.

Elvis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they change my voice in real-time to sound like Elvis?
Thank you very much.

Re:Elvis?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

uh huh!

This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[markana]

As if it wasn't on the way anyway...

The carriers will then have a choice: let the encrypted traffic through, or restrict their customer's Internet use to only approved (and monitored) traffic.

It will be interesting to see which option various countries choose...

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Edmund Blackadder]

The thing is, if you decide to ban encrypted traffic, you may as well say goodbye to internet commerce. All on-line purchases are done trough secure connections. I don't think any western country is going to ban encrypted traffic anytime soon. Online sellers are well established and they won't let it happen.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[JesseMcDonald]

They could then just add some jitter to any unrecognized (i.e. encrypted) traffic, thus making the connection useless for any two-way voice streams. They don't have to block the connection entirely, and most services are not interactive and wouldn't notice the difference.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[jrockway]

Skype is encrypted and P2P. Yet they can still block it.

Also, if your VoIP service ever uses real phone lines, the telco can easily block it.

If this happened in the US, though, it would be an illegal abuse of their monopoly powers. When they start censoring certain data, they lose their common carrier status as well, so they become liable for all the child porn, viruses, illegal movie downloads, etc. that they transfer. Probably not a road they want to go down.

However, I guess cable companies in the US aren't common carriers, so they can (and do) block other VoIP. Someone needs to sue them for this -- it's absolutely ridiculous. When you break part of the Internet, you aren't an ISP anymore. You're a Content That We Cram Up Your Ass Service Provider... just like cable companies are already.

Personally, I use Speakeasy DSL which does nothing but route bits to and from my machine. That's the way the Internet should be!

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[MichaelSmith]

restrict their customer's Internet use to only approved (and monitored) traffic.

Not hard to do in Saudi Arabia.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Nogami_Saeko]

Skype doesn't use random ports and protocols does it? It needs to handshake the two programs before the encrypted data transfer starts, which probably makes it relatively easy to block at the router level.

That said, it shouldn't be impossible to masquerade VOIP data as something like a first-person shooter data stream (many of which have voice-chat already integrated), or by some other means that would result in the ISP/Telco blocking legitimate users as well and raising their angst level.

Fighting technology is a losing proposition for conventional telcos, so they better find a way to work with users rather than against them...

N.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[shakah]

Skype is encrypted...

It still uses RTP as the protocol though, doesn't it? Though the payload may be encrypted, the packets are probably easily identified by that protocol.

A more insidious approach would be for the ISP to "traffic shape" and drop every nth RTP packet -- it wouldn't take much to degrade voice quality.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Loonacy]

would result in the ISP/Telco blocking legitimate users as well

Are you suggesting that VOIP isn't legitimate?

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Jacco de Leeuw]

Use Google's VPN and the telco won't be able to detect the VOIP. Of course, the NSA^H^H^HGoogle will be listening in to your call, but hey, you can't have everything...

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[rebelcan]

He might be trying to make the point that the telco's think that VOIP isn't legitimate, despite what everybody ( at least the /. crowd ) else thinks.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Anonymous Coward]

They could then just add some jitter to any unrecognized (i.e. encrypted) traffic, thus making the connection useless for any two-way voice streams.

And also making it useless for email, web, etc. Not exactly a smart idea for any ISP that wants to remain in the ISP business.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just encapsulate / encrypt in SSL.. that can't block that..

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[chill]

Skype uses their own encryption method and is a black-box.

Use SSL/TLS for encryption and let 'em work on weeding out THAT traffic from regular e-commerce and other SSL connections.

  -Charles

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[jc42]

He might be trying to make the point that the telco's think that VOIP isn't legitimate, ...

Actually, this isn't credible. They are using it heavily themselves, internally. For some years now, it's been widely reported within the comms and computer industry that, except for the link to your home, most of the "phone" traffic in the US and other countries has been converted to VoIP. The phone companies have found that running IP and VoIP over their private lines is a cheap and very effective way to multiplex everything. They don't even have to write the software, and IP is far easier to manage than most of the voice-only schemes that they had been developing.

An aside is that a phone link is usually an RTP connection, not TCP. Look it up. It's a 15-year-old protocol that is essentially TCP augmented by a "QOS" (guaranteed minimal throughput) feature.

What they're really trying to do is make sure that they control that "last mile" to your phone outlet, and that they can continue to charge you the old monopoly prices even after they've radically lowered their operating costs by using VoIP internally.

So the telcos think that VoIP is entirely legitimate and use it heavily. But only they should be allowed to sell it. Even if you own your own private network, you shouldn't be permitted to run VoIP internally; you must buy it from your local phone company in a non-competitive market.

It's all about the money. They're just protecting their century-old business plan and its profits.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[jc42]

Heh. I'll bet that encrypted VoIP is already in use in Saudia Arabia. The ruling class there has a lot of phone traffic that they really don't want tapped.

Rather, they'll try to strictly control who is allowed to use encryption. That way, they can spy on all the little people, while the little people (and media, police, etc.) can't spy on them.

Similarly in quite a lot of other countries.

I keep wondering why our current rulers here in the US don't seem to be trying to force us to drop ssh and go back to telnet. It would be a security disaster for everyone, of course, but why would they care?

I haven't actually read of any US or European challenges to the switch from telnet to ssh. I use it all the time, and I've never gotten any nasty letters from and authorities. Anyone have information about attempts to shut ssh down?

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[MichaelSmith]

Anyone have information about attempts to shut ssh down?

No, but remember that sneakers was not a documentary. For most politicians Word is normal tech and Powerpoint is scary advanced stuff.

For the average terrorist bomb maker mobile phones are exploitable tech and for the mules they use to carry their bombs a screwdriver is way out high tech.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[JesseMcDonald]

Jitter is defined as random variances, typically in the 10's or 100's of milliseconds, in the delays between successive packets in stream. It is related to latency, which is the minimum delay between the transmission and reception of any given packet. Given that, how, exactly, would adding jitter impede e-mail, web pages, instant messages, or any primary Internet services besides live voice conversations and possibly online real-time games? The technique was mentioned in that article as an effective method for discreetly discouraging the use of VoIP.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[whovian]

The thing is, if you decide to ban encrypted traffic, you may as well say goodbye to internet commerce. All on-line purchases are done trough secure connections.

Why not? They could drop all encrypted traffic to non-authorized sites at the internet backbone level, and e-commerce survives. Then the question is, who controls the white list of approved web sites?

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[jrockway]

This is what TFA recommends --introduce errors and delay into VoIP so that people won't want to use it anymore. Average Joe will notice that Skype sucks, so he'll pay 100 times as much to use the real telco. Sadly, I think the IEEE is in favor of this -- they routinely sell themselves out to the giant corporations and governments. I'll probably continue to renew my membership, but it does get tiring after a while.

(The article read, to me, something like "Some goddamn bastards figured out how to call people for like 1 cent a minute. This is going to put the telcos out of business, which is bad because they have a God-given right to fuck over as many people as they want. Skype should be made illegal, but since we haven't managed to get that bribe written out yet, we'll just block it at the router level. Problem solved." Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, though :)

Anyway, this is a very slippery slope. When ISPs start doing this, the Internet is going to fragment:

"Hello Level 3, this is Cogent. We're randomly dropping packets destined for your customers."
"Hello Cogent, this is UUNET. We're randomly delaying packets destined for your customers."
"Hello US, this is the UN. We're going to make our own intarweb unless something or other. Haha, then the US will suffer because you can't get to the global intarweb." ... etc.

I'm glad I'm in academia where Internet 2 is run by intelligent people who want to do something other than make maximum dollars RIGHT NOW.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[jrockway]

Block Skype's central server and disallow incoming connections to every machine on your network. Done.

The ISPs have too much control here. It should be made illegal for ISPs to pull crap like this. It's not the Internet when ISPs can pick-n-choose what packets they want to route, and which packets they don't.

Today it's Skype, tomorrow it's other ISPs, next week it's indymedia, then slashdot. See where this is going? That's not the Internet.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[ncc74656]

I guess cable companies in the US aren't common carriers, so they can (and do) block other VoIP.

Speaking from experience, Cox doesn't block Packet8. It probably doesn't block other VoIP services either, but I can't say for certain if this is the case. While it is true that cable companies aren't considered common carriers, competition from DSL and other broadband services should keep most cable companies from trying to block VoIP, at least in the US. Over in Europe, where cable TV (and related services) never really caught on and each nation has only one government-run phone company, the situation is likely to be different.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[ScrewMaster]

Then the question is, who controls the white list of approved web sites?

That would be me. So get your applications (and application fees) in early, you don't want to be left out in the cold. I take Paypal and all major credit cards.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[fimbulvetr]

At that point, it becomes a social problem and it probably doesn't have a technical solution.
Not only that, but this is where a capitalist market would exceed. I'd choose the ISP that didn't block X, and there would probably be a market for it.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[pyrrhonist]

An aside is that a phone link is usually an RTP connection, not TCP. Look it up. It's a 15-year-old protocol

Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) was accepted as an IETF standards track protocol in January 1996. The research goes back as far as the 1970's.

that is essentially TCP

RTP is not specific to any particular transport layer, but in IP networks is layered upon UDP.

That being said, it most assuredly cannot be used over TCP.

Furthermore, it is most unlike TCP in that it is an unreliable transport protocol.

augmented by a "QOS" (guaranteed minimal throughput) feature.

From the RFC:

Note that RTP itself does not provide any mechanism to ensure timely delivery or provide other quality-of-service guarantees, but relies on lower-layer services to do so. It does not guarantee delivery or prevent out-of-order delivery, nor does it assume that the underlying network is reliable and delivers packets in sequence. The sequence numbers included in RTP allow the receiver to reconstruct the sender's packet sequence, but sequence numbers might also be used to determine the proper location of a packet, for example in video decoding, without necessarily decoding packets in sequence.

RTP gives you the ability to monitor the transfer through RTCP, but offers you no QoS guarantees. In other words, your application needs to do its own QoS by monitoring the RTCP. Depending upon your application and the underlying transport, you may also need to retrieve QoS information from other sources.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[MikeB90]

More importantly it needs a login server to assure unique ids, and bootstrap server nodes. Pretty easy to block really http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.NI/0412017

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[AstroDrabb]

Use Google's VPN...

Will Google Secure Access work at other locations?

No - the Google Secure Access client is only intended to provide secure web access for users at a few local Mountain View, CA "hotspots" that Google established as part of a community outreach program.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Anonymous Coward]

Always Communist, Left-wing, and Un-American

That explains why they formally bared Communists from board and staff positions in 1940, defended the rights of Neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, IL. and opposed restrictions on campaign donations as an unnecessary restriction of free speech.

Never mind. You probably live in your own distored reality and don't want to be disturbed by contradictory facts.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Nethemas the Great]

Don't be so certain. The US is typically considered the "land of the free" usually more so than the EU, our FCC doesn't seem to interested in anything other than monopolies. Clear Channel, and AOL Time Warner comes to mind... We're all still crossing our fingers on the software patent thing, but the longer things go the more obvious it is that the "free and open" people are going to get nailed up the arse by corporate $$$ on Capital Hill and in the courts.

If this keeps up I'm moving to some nice asian nation where tech runs free.

--Neth

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Jackmn]

Except that games would suffer.

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[Jetson]

The carriers will then have a choice: let the encrypted traffic through, or restrict their customer's Internet use to only approved (and monitored) traffic.

Even though the content is encrypted, it's still possible to figure out the end points. The https protocol uses TCP port 443. VoIP doesn't. It would be trivial to allow one and block the other. Once that happens, the only way to make a VoIP call is to have an SSL-enabled web server at the receiving end. The telcos have already got out the knives to go after VoIP-PSTN bridges. VoIP won't sell if grandma can't accept incoming calls from the VoIP-enabled grandchildren....

Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP...

[ArtStone]

The FCC quickly ruled at the first chance that came along that telecom companies may not block VoIP:

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/348746 6

and have reiterated again that this practice won't be tolerated. Of course, once the UN and/or EU "takes over the internet", we can look forward to paying $2 a minute again to make an overseas call.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

analogy
n. pl. analogies

      1.
                  1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
                  2. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it still work if the traffic is encrypted?

Re:Encryption

[jacksonj04]

Skype traffic is encrypted anyway.

What would the U.N. think of this?

[RentonSentinel]

The U.N. is comprised of many of these repressive anti-freedom regimes. Thankfully, they only control what happens within their borders.

To all slashdotters who want U.N. control of the internet- behold, internationalization and diversity prove inferior to plain old fashioned American ideals yet again.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[nharmon]

Why do you think they want control of the Internet? The only reasons that make sense is so they can more effectively censor and filter internet content.

I don't expect the United Nations to do anything to stop these countries from blocking VoIP calls. Thus, why would we expect them to do anything about internet censorship?

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

To all slashdotters who want U.N. control of the internet- behold, internationalization and diversity prove inferior to plain old fashioned American ideals yet again.

What the fuck are you on about? These are foreign corporations that want to screw all the consumers, as usual, and as pioneered by the, oh-so-democratically great US corporations. It is the corporations which are the enemy here and the UN has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Furthermore, corporate sponsored entities, the WTO and WIPO do have everything to do with this, and yet, somehow, I do see brainwashed tools shreeking at the top of their lungs about the UN and not them.

It is a democratic duty of every citizen of any democratic nation, be it US, Canada, France, Germany or any other to oppose corporatists at every turn, because corporatism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[ahillen]

The U.N. is comprised of many of these repressive anti-freedom regimes.

Well, at least as far as Germany and France are concerned, the "regimes" mentionend in the article are Vodafone and SFR, both cell phone providers. I can asure you that neither of them is member of the UN.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that! When will people realize that money is power, and that the large corporations are amassing a disgusting amount of money and essentially "winning" the game of capitalism?

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

American ideals? Because, of course, no other nation in the world has the same ideas about freedom or democracy.

Bullshit.

Stop wanking off to your flag and learn about other cultures. America is not the first, and certainly not the best, at promoting Western ideals.

For all your vaunted "freedom", many international reports place USA far behind other countries in terms of integrity, lack of corruption, freedom of the press and other measures you profess to lead.
Google them and educate yourself; you are perpetuating the stereotype of Americans as ignorant and hypocritical, and that does everyone a misjustice.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[shmlco]

"...to oppose corporatists at every turn, because corporatism and democracy are mutually exclusive."

Huh? Care to explain how THAT follows?

(I'm sure that, with a username such as your own, the answer will at least be entertaining...)

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[marsperson]

Germany and France hardly qualify as repressive regimes, their press is in many respects more free than in the US. The oft touted fact that they ban racist speech obscures the fact that their press is more diverse, and has less taboos than it's US counterpart.

Add to that the fact that the UN is a driving force between getting many of the world's poorest countries online, and, through the help of the ITU, is trying to convince third world goverments of the benefits of community broadband and VOIP, it isn't really a force fighting VOIP, is it?

Also, remember that many of these countries have more than one phone company. Bouygues Telecom in France offers broadband, interactive television, and VOIP over the power grid (mentioned in Salon.com). Do you think Microsoft's trade practices should be seen as reflecting US policy at large?

The UN is comprised of many repressive regimes, but so is the list of US allies and US client states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, in the 70's most of latin america, former Zaire, etc.).

Nice try at FUDing...

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[RentonSentinel]

We've had corporations and a stock market in America for 200 years... I fail to see how they hurt us.

In fact, having companies like IBM, GE, Raytheon, Boeing, Haliburton, Intel, Microsoft, Exxon, Google, etc have done wonders for my wallet.

I head that Cuba disdains corporations... care to abandon your corporate life and swim there? I think not...

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Huh? Care to explain how THAT follows?

It is rather simple: The stated and exclusive purpose of a corporation is to generate profit. The optimal condition to generate maximum profit is a government-protected monopoly. Therefore most corporations, once they reach certain size, actively work to undermine democratic processes, by attempting to lobby, bribe politicians and influence public opinion via affiliated media in order to fulfill their purpose to its full extent. Furthermore, once a corporation unduly grows in size, via acquisitions and mergers, with each expansion it becomes less and less a construct of a free market and more and more an ingredient of an oligarchy, as at each stage of consolidation the overall level of free market competition is lessened. The optimal political system for these corporations, once they are large enough, is fascism. Today, some corporations have accumulated more wealth and power then entire nations.

All of the above, combined, simply means that the purposes of corporations are at odds of those of cirizenry. The capitalist free market as well as the democratic societies in general are simply not equipped to deal with artificial "persons" of immesurable power and wealth, rivalling those of the representative governments. Corporations were never intended to be this way, nor does Adam Smith's theory take their existence properly into account as his was a theory of socially beneficial side-effects of personal greed aided by inventiveness to be aggressively and efficiently counter-balanced by competition. Thus large (especially multi-national) corporations are contrary to both the democratic credo of representative govenance and capitalist marketplace. Thereofre it is a duty of every believer in democracy and personal freedoms to oppose those who believe in governance by corproations for corporations and to insist that severe limits and restrictions be placed on the size and political activities of corporations. As corporatists believe the exact opposite, it is therefore a duty of every democratically oriented citizen of every country to oppose corporatists.

Is this the amusing explanation you wanted?

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Nicolas MONNET]

As I said in an earlier post, should SFR (cell phone (3G) provider) try to implement this shit, they'd get hit hard and fast. They're already being investigated, along with "competitors" Orange and Bouygtel for price-fixing.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[smittyoneeach]

Aw, cmon: the UN did a swell job with the oil
for food program. What's not to like? Just be
cool and hand over the domain servers, already.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

In fact, having companies like IBM, GE, Raytheon, Boeing, Haliburton, Intel, Microsoft, Exxon, Google, etc have done wonders for my wallet.

No, what has done wonders for your wallet is the tens of thousands of small businesses which employ, as they always have, 80% of US citizens.

We've had corporations and a stock market in America for 200 years... I fail to see how they hurt us.

Stock market is irrelevant to this, as I do not advocate abolishment of business but controls on large corporations. As to the excesses of those large corporations, try the activities of the Robber Barons or the 1929 market crash. If it were not for the fact that some people always opposed them, you would be by now an indentured, to some new Robber Baron, slave.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[RentonSentinel]

You don't know what you believe... US Corporations have thousands of regulations to follow every day. If you have a specific proposal to change, please, spell it out explicitly to your Senator.

Then, your regulator change can be evaluated in the marketplace of ideas, and accepted or rejected.

But you don't have a proposal. Proposals are for actual people who work to achieve something. What you are doing is just bitching into the wind... Spreading hyperbole.

And by the way, business is business... Big businesses evolve out of smaller businesses and big businesses control and employ many other smaller businesses. What is the market capitalization cut-off for when a business becomes evil? $100,000,000 dollars? Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is evil. $10,000,000,000 dollars? Apple Computer is evil.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[SEE]

You know, if you're going to use a term like "corporatism", you should first learn what it actually means. Because you sure don't seem to be talking about rule by government-established councils consisting of representatives of businesses and labor unions.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Money is only power as long as those who actually have power simultaneously covet it and have sufficient self-restraint not to seize it. The normal human condition is that power can translate into money, but not the other way around.

For example, very few wealthy medieval Jewish moneylenders had much power; even the richest were usually confined to the ghettoes. On the other hand, heavily indebted medieval nobles found it relatively easy to erase their debts and fill their treasuries by seizing the assets of those moneylenders.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[dextroz]

What about RIAA? They are also a "foreign" corporation for someone else. Hell they are screwing your own country and you can't do squat about it! In fact y'all (American politicians) have your hands deep in each others arses when it comes to that!

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, and people wonder why most of the world hates Americans. It's because people like you and dubya give them all a bad name.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Stephen Ma]

But you don't have a proposal.

He doesn't need a proposal to limit the damage that oligarchs can do, because the proper laws are already in the books. They just need to be enforced.

For example, the anti-trust laws are pretty much a dead letter today.... and, to the surprise of no one who knows even a smidgeon of history, we are presently repeating the horrific corruption of the Gilded Age. A one-time learner is young and naive, as the U.S. was during the first age of the robber barons; a two-time learner is just plain stupid.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Peter La Casse]

The capitalist free market as well as the democratic societies in general are simply not equipped to deal with artificial "persons" of immesurable power and wealth, rivalling those of the representative governments.

Your description of corporations reminds me of some of the super-intelligent beings that populate singularity fiction. I'm not among those who think that a singularity inspired by sentient software is just around the corner, but it seems very reasonable that a group of people, equipped with modern information technology, could emulate a super-intelligence pretty well.

So what are the solutions to the problem you've raised?

With corporations, I can think of a couple: we could use the law to limit their power, and we could change their explicit purpose to include certain other goals (like social responsibility.) (This is in theory; in practice, it might be too late.)

Are there others? What would be the negative side effects of restricting the size and power of corporations?

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because most of the world is filled with bigots like you who generalize your hatred for individuals of a class to all members of the class.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree here 100%. And to those in doubt, watch "The Corporation". http://www.thecorporation.com/

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[heson]

One first move could be to try to control the widespread corruption. Another move could be to ensure that politicians see the intrest of people not corporations. (If you work as CEO one day and writes laws the other day, what Is your wiewpoint? How unselfish can you be?)

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[Peter La Casse]

I have thought about the problem of corruption, and I haven't been able to come up with a good solution to it. People will be corrupt; it's inevitable. With government, the solution is not so hard: make government weak enough so that when it's made up of corrupt people, it can't do much damage to its citizens. But, a too-weak government leaves powerful corporations unchecked.

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You know, if you're going to use a term like "corporatism", you should first learn what it actually means. Because you sure don't seem to be talking about rule by government-established councils consisting of representatives of businesses and labor unions.

No, I speak of another form corporatism, that is a government by CEOs of corporations disguised as a representative democracy (note the absence of the labour unions). At this point, in most western democracies, it is impossible for a politician to get elected without some explicit help from corporations, both financial and direct (as for example corporate media access). Subsequently it is not a surprise that these politicians have little choice but to do corporate bidding. Furthermore, since at this point the corporations in some western countries (USA principally) have completely monopolized the access to information for majority of citizenry, they are now capable of directly influencing the mass preceptions and opinions of that public. Since dumb, easily led, public is the optimal, maleable form of "voters" for a corporation-friendly arrangement, most of the journalism which once afforded the populace the opportunity to participate meaningfully in politics has been replaced by "soft news", "infotainment" and a plethora of meaningless shouting heads.

This is the most dangerous form of corporatism because, unlike in that old example of yours, the corporations do not share any of the risks of direct participation in politics and subsequently its fallout, and yet, at the same time, hold all the cards, regardless of who gets "elected".

Re:What would the U.N. think of this?

[irablum]

To all slashdotters who want U.N. control of the internet- behold, internationalization and diversity prove inferior to plain old fashioned American ideals yet again. What the fuck are you on about? These are foreign corporations that want to screw all the consumers, as usual, and as pioneered by the, oh-so-democratically great US corporations. It is the corporations which are the enemy here and the UN has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Furthermore, corporate sponsored entities, the WTO and WIPO do have everything to do with this, and yet, somehow, I do see brainwashed tools shreeking at the top of their lungs about the UN and not them. It is a democratic duty of every citizen of any democratic nation, be it US, Canada, France, Germany or any other to oppose corporatists at every turn, because corporatism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Foreign corporations are even more influential over foreign governments than US corporations are over the US governments. in many cases, the foreign "corporation" is OWNED by the government. Ask yourself, who owns Saudi Telecom? is it possible he might be related in some way to the King of Saudi Arabia? hmmm?

and btw, Corporatism is NOT exclusive with democracy. It is

Ira

Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this legally possible? To sell things in a bundle without offering the same items unbundled?

(e.g., avoid the usage of IP-phones of rival makers)

I guess this illegal in my country (Brasil).

Other Backlash, Thank TiVo?

[ackthpt]

Heineken will end TV adverts in the UK due to perception of declining connection with the core market, 18-26 year olds. It was mentioned on the BBC World Service that a possible further consideration was the use of Sky+ and TiVo which allow viewers to skip commercials. It could also be that the core group spend more time on the internet than watching TV.

So less return on television advertising, thanks to the evolution of technology, and what future does this have for television entertainment, if the place to advertise isn't the tube? Product placement, I suppose. Let's have a surreptitious party on the show with people having what is undeniably a very good time and feature Heineken cans/bottles, perhaps have an actor say, "this Heineken beer is excellent, much more flavourful then other leading brands."

Harlo Wilcox, Don Wilson and Bill Goodwin, your kind we shall meet again.

Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo?

[justasecond]

Holy *%#@! How many slashdotters would know Harlo Wilcox and Don Wilson? (Bill Goodwin even I don't know). You're an OTR fan?

Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo?

[Netscryer]

At a recent seminar at my University there was a demonstration of some video processing software. The actors in the clip (a short section of Friends) were wearing plain T-shirts. The guy then added on a logo, and then they all had Nike shirts. Then Addidas. It was very well done, and he could add logos te anything (cars, walls -- anything).

Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo?

[ackthpt]

Holy *%#@! How many slashdotters would know Harlo Wilcox and Don Wilson? (Bill Goodwin even I don't know). You're an OTR fan?

I listen to those 50-60 year old radio shows over satellite (118 on Sirius) and the way they did product placement is often highly entertaining.

Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo?

[justasecond]

Yah. Seems like the casual way they mentioned the sponsor (or not so casual -- Benny's Sportsman Quartet singing about the sponsor every week) could work pretty well for some TV shows.

It's cool how sometimes the shows could even get away with making fun of the sponsor (listen to how Phil Harris' show treated Rex-All). *That* would probably not work these days.

(Forgot Sirius did OTR. I have my own collection of 3000 or so shows; in fact I'm listening to one now.)

Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo?

[ackthpt]

It's cool how sometimes the shows could even get away with making fun of the sponsor (listen to how Phil Harris' show treated Rex-All). *That* would probably not work these days.

Oh, I don't know. I've seen a number of shows where good natured fun is poked at a sponsor. It doesn't really hurt and possibly helps.

Harlo was notorious for hawking the Johnson Wax Glo-Coat on Fibber McGee, which even the other characters would often mock lightly ("Here it comes, folks.")

Bill Goodwin was portrayed as a rascally character on the Burns & Allen Show, promoting Maxwell House Coffee and Swan Soap (I've nearly got his sales pitch memorized by now!), frequently in funny and even roaringly funny ways.

Re:BS

[topper24hours]

Take every comment on Slashdot literally? You must be new here...

Outlaw CLECs

[wiredlogic]

Why don't they just outlaw VOIP CLECs that connect to their internal phone networks? This would be much easier that trying to filter packets.

Good bye ma bell

[canuck57]

They have been ripping us off for years because of their monopoly. Now they must compete or dye. Me, I already don't use the local telco and haven't looked back.

Good bye ma bell.... don't need you.

Re:Good bye ma bell

[GecKo213]

Now they must compete or dye.

What does "To take on or impart color" or dye have to do with VoIP? I think the proper word should be "Die" or cease living is really what you're after here. I don't mean to be picky, but that made me feel weird when I read it. It had to be corrected... Thank you.

Re:Good bye ma bell

[KC7GR]

And what color would this 'dye' be? ;-)

More seriously... Sure, you don't need Ma Bell... Until you try to dial 911 for a heart attack or some similar nastiness from your VoIP line, and the call ends up in a dispatch center three states over. Seconds really do count in an emergency, and trying to get the call back to the right place is going to eat plenty of them.

And how about that cool VoIP phone? Works great... as long as you have AC power handy. No, much better than the old POTS phones, which were not at all dependent on your local power, and work as long as the central office has its power (and it will... have you ever seen the battery bank for a typical CO? I have. Their generators are no slouch either).

I predict much finger-pointing, harsh words, and saber-rattling will come out of this fracas, and the end result will most likely benefit no one. What a joke...

Re:Good bye ma bell

[stoanhart]

Heh heh,

I know what you mean. I don't even own a phone. I love the look on people's faces when they ask me what my phone number is and I say I don't have one...

Re:Good bye ma bell

[linsys]

Ummmm YEA YOU DO... if you connect to the internet you use the "Local Telco" atleast if you live in the U.S... who do you think provides your internet connection... Qwest, MCI, Sprint, etc... pretty much OWN the backbone to the internet and I guarantee your traffic is sent over their lines, and some of the money you pay for DSL or CABLE goes to these very companies..

Even VoIP Whole Sales Services or VoIP local service purchase service from these companies...

The local telcos will NEVER go away... PERIOD... even if voip takes over, which is will... people will still need to use the local telco for their internet backbone..

Its called a Term of Service

[Gothmolly]

For instance, Cox Cable @Home explicitly says "No VPNs", but many users do anyway. It would be a simple matter for them to block IPSec traffic, or even regular UDP/500 traffic. (yes, there are SSL VPNs, blah blah blah). And you couldn't complain, because you signed the contract.

In other countries, not even Soviet Russia, there are State-owned Telcos, which have implicit or explicit Terms of Service. I'm sure the Telco in Saudi Arabia says things like "no porn, no homosexual activity, nothing critical of Islam" etc. They ALSO probably say "no VoIP".

Don't like it? Don't use the service... oh wait, you have to, because its a State owned monopoly. Oh well, strive for political change then.

Re:Its called a Term of Service

[interiot]

The actual process for EULA reform seems to be:

• company publishes crazy EULA, and actually enforces it
• technical press notes insanity, writes story, warning readers to avoid product
• non-technical press reprints the story
• company realises the story hasn't reached most end cusomters yet, but it's only a matter of time, so they change quickly change their EULA
• ... process repeats every time a company starts enforcing crazy EULAs

Until a company actually enforces a EULA, it's still a somewhat theoretical problem... news places can't always print a story saying "Crazy EULA #1,942,682 released, film at 11" because people won't pay attention.

Re:Its called a Term of Service

[imemyself]

Cox doesn't actually block VPN? Cool, I thought they did. I might have to start using that instead of forwarding a dozen ports over SSH.

I'm not sure how those countries laws are worded

[The Woodworker]

But wouldn't this affect their status as a common carrier? IANAL, so I'm actually wondering how this applies.

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was going to school in the Caribbean, we used to use Dialpad as a means of keeping touch with family and friends in the United States. We were provided free wireless access on a 10mbps connection to the school. When Dialpad caught on, Cable & Wireless (the national ISP and phone company) started blocking the ports Dialpad worked on. They were getting upset that students at the school were not buying pre-paid phone cards to use with their cellular phones. The backstory is that Cable & Wireless charges a deposit of nearly US$250 and phone service itself is extremely expensive so most students opt to get a pre-paid GSM cell phone which they can refill as necessary. Dialpad was cutting into their profits so they blocked it. It was chaotic on campus for quite some time and Dialpad tried to what they could but Cable & Wireless would always block the new ports. What this did is allow other services to work because Cable & Wireless couldn't block everything. It's unfortunate but companies do it. I hope that VoIP companies increase the encryption on the calls so wiretapping goes away.

secure VPN and PHPhone to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall "PHP Phone" from a few years back. If it's still maintained, it's a viable contender to beat this.
Of course, encryption is probably also illegal in many of those countries.

There's always the Chinese firewall-busting method of a secure VPN tunnel to some bandwidth in the USA or "free" Europe. Hopefully the extra bottleneck wouldn't be too horrendus, since the majority of Internet traffic would be routed through there anyway.

Fight Fire WIth Fire?

[Bodysurf]

# ping -f narus.com

Re:Fight Fire WIth Fire?

[lixee]

Better yet. Link their website in a /. article.

Re:Fight Fire WIth Fire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, their uber duper software would just filter it out.

I don't think that would fly in the US

[confusion]

Wasn't there recently a /. article about a court case that ruled that ISP's can't block access to certain sites because they 'compete' with said ISP?

Besides, if you like foxnews, comcast is the most people get is already, albeit over cable tv, not internet.

I really hope we don't see this deterioration of the internet, though.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[Spetiam]

I really hope we don't see this deterioration of the internet, though.

Please bear in mind that Germany, France, et al. are the same countries that are trying, through the UN, to forcibly take control of the internet's root servers.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I do want to emphasize that the structure of the internet today makes it very easy for powerful organizations (governments, in particular, but telcos in this case) to regulate and control the flow of information, no matter how legitimate.

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[ahillen]

Please bear in mind that Germany, France, et al. are the same countries that are trying, through the UN, to forcibly take control of the internet's root servers.

To forcibly take control? They are questioning the status quo and are trying to persuade the world that it should be handled differently. It is their right to do this, and there is no force involved.

Also, please note that the article has nothing to do with the states of France and Germany. It mentions two cell phone companies, SFR and Vodafone, which apparently decided to block VoIP on their respective networks.

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[6*7]

"I'm not trying to start a flame war"

You could have fooled me then. The FA clearly mentioned that in Germany and France *telecom operators* (Vodaphone and SFR) are looking into it, these are not members of the UN.

BTW please remember me which government is trying to censor the .xxx tld!

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[walt-sjc]

If France, Germany, or whatever other country wanted to, they could control their own root servers. All they would need to do is force their local ISP's to forward all root server traffic to the government run servers. Trivial to do. This is not about their lack of control - this is all about hating the US and trying to damage us in any and all ways possible without physically starting a war.

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[Spetiam]

BTW please remember me which government is trying to censor the .xxx tld!

Who the hell cares?

Is this argument supposed to have any credibility? ... Oh, right, this is slashdot.

Pornography is a poor use of free speech, to say the least. To hear you carping about how ".xxx is being censored!" doesn't do the cause of liberty any favors. Who the hell needs pornography? A bunch of teenagers too socially inept to interact with people instead of images?

I, and many others I'm sure, really couldn't give half of a rat's stinking hindquarters if pornography is censored into oblivion, as it has practically zero impact on anything of any import. I fear that those who so fanatically fight pointless battles on behalf of pornographers have so completely lost sight of the true importance of free speech that they are entirely ineffective at recognizing, let alone successfully defending, speech that actually matters. (I give you McFeingold... The ACLU sure stopped that one dead in its tracks, and still they're able to keep NAMBLA up and running! Great multi-taskers, those lawyers.)

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[handelaar]

Ah.

So there's a difference between "Good free speech" and "bad free speech"? Well, that certainly clears things up. Thanks.

Like the quote said: "I disagree with what you're saying, so I won't lift a finger to defend your right to say it. Screw you." You're a noble, noble person and I salute you.

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[ahillen]

Sooo...

You don't like the way things are handeled and you:

Option A: just do it your own way, without talking to the others involved, risking to break a lot of things. "Who cares, I do what I want to do..."

Option B: Start a discussion about what you don't like, trying to convince as many of the others involved as possible that the current system needs in your opinion to be reformed.

What you are essentially saying that one should go with option A, because B just shows how much you hate the others? Strange thinking...

Re:I don't think that would fly in the US

[Spetiam]

So there's a difference between "Good free speech" and "bad free speech"?

There's a difference between speech that matters and speech that doesn't. Pornography doesn't matter, so this "speech" is very low on my list of priorities to defend. It seems that, for some people and civil liberties organizations, pornography and NAMBLA take priority over political discourse.

Your access to pornography and your right to bugger little boys is no different, on the scale of "things that actually matter," as your neighbor's ability to speak in favor of a political candidate without fear of being fined or thrown in jail for it?

You're an idiot; get some perspective.

Common carrier status?

[strider3700]

I thought all of the phone companies qualify as common carriers and are not responsible for whats on their networks because they can't and shouldn't control it. Now that they have filtering ability for somethings they should be charged for every copied song and every piece of child porn moving on their wires.

Re:Common carrier status?

[shutdown -p now]

I thought all of the phone companies qualify as common carriers and are not responsible for whats on their networks because they can't and shouldn't control it ...

... , in the United States of America.

Re:Common carrier status?

[Wesley Felter]

Then they'll just buy new laws that suit them better.

Similar article in the WSJ

[Strudelkugel]

Today's Wall Street Journal Online also has an article. It discusses the attempts US domestic carriers are making to block third party services, as well as limiting file sharing and other "hi bandwidth" uses. Fortunately the FCC has prevented the major carriers from blocking independent VOIP providers, but Europeans evidently have a different view, which is weird since our consumer internet connectivity sucks compared to theirs, let alone Asia.

Just shows what an overpriced cash cow voice is now.

Re:Similar article in the WSJ

[marsperson]

>>"but Europeans evidently have a different view"

Actually the subject is to recent in Europe to know what their opinion on it will be after it has been fought out in the proper institutions. I really hope the European Comission gets into this, as a ruling by them would set a rule and save us the hassle of having to resolve this in every single country. I don't think the telcos seriously think they can get away with this, they are just trying to buy time to roll out their own VOIP apps and are gambling that because this is a new issue they will be asked to change their practice, rather than face unfair trade practice rulings which can't be based on precedent.

Re:Similar article in the WSJ

[ballpoint]

Just shows what an overpriced cash cow voice is now.

Of course. At 64kbps (if that) a 1 minute voice call is less than half a maybebyte. My ISP charges 1 EUR / gigglebyte over the limit, and that's plenty rich. This means that, in a transparant market, 2000 transcontinental voice minutes should cost less than 1 EUR.

Re:Similar article in the WSJ

[randalx]

Instead they should be encouraging high bandwidth services so users are encouraged to shell out for bigger pipes.

slapped and fined

[mqx]

If they try to do this, you can be sure that the competition authorities will slap and fine them over it. Complain as you will about EU or national authorities, but as we've seen with Microsoft ruling, they are quite active on anti-competitive issues, and a teleco that tries to block VOIP so as to ensure the the customer has to use the telco services and can't choose to use a lower priced alternative service will find itself in lots of trouble.

Re:slapped and fined

[6*7]

How is this anti competitive? There are many, many carriers. Customers how care can easily switch to $RANDOM_COMPETITOR.

Re:slapped and fined

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yes, I'm sure Saudi Telecom, a state-established monopoly that was state-owned until 1998, is going to get slapped around by a Saudi competition authority.

Re:fp

[rovingeyes]

Hey can we also get Narus to detect this fp crap? I'd pay for it goddammit!

Mod parent up.

[uofitorn]

Slashdot is great for many things. However, the general consensus among many, especially those whose enlightened opinions and interesting comments would be welcome here, is that most Slashdot articles are FUD-mongering themselves.

Wiretaps?

[slashmojo]

It makes possible digital wiretaps, a capability that carriers are required by law to have. However, these positive applications for Narus's software may not be enough to make Internet users warm to its use.

Wiretaps are a positive feature for users? No doubt governments/law enforcement get very warm and tingly over wiretaps but I can't see users warming to it quite so much.

Now spyware on the other hand, thats something that really does get users hot and bothered! ;)

What good does it really do to block...

[GecKo213]

VoIP calls? How can the entire country say that they're going to block VoIP calls? What good can it possibly accomplish? I'm curious why any of you think they may do this? Are they wanting to get a piece of the pie and then allow the calls? This just confuses me. I realize business doesn't want people to have it's products or services for free, but to shut down a phone network to people who say couldn't afford to call their family in Germany so they get Skype and then can use voice to communicate is rediculous to me!

Re:What good does it really do to block...

[MichaelSmith]

VoIP calls? How can the entire country say that they're going to block VoIP calls? What good can it possibly accomplish?

Here in Australia the main telco is majority owned by the Federal Government. The share price is crashing because if people getting VOIP or mobiles and this is impacting Government revenue forecasts.

Currently we have a whole lot of anti terrorist legislation about to be passed, with some features which take rights away from normal people suspected of being terrorists.

If the security services went to the Government and said that this VOIP stuff is enabling (suspected) terrorists to evade wiretaps, then perhaps this inconvenient service could be made to go away.

That is how I see it happening, anyway.

Re:What good does it really do to block...

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the entire country say that they're going to block VoIP calls?

As far as Germany is concerned, this is not about an entire country blocking VoIP. The article specifically talks about Vodafone, one of the four cell phone providers. This has nothing to do with e.g. fixed line DSL connections.

Re:What good does it really do to block...

[CastrTroy]

If they block the well known applications, the terrorists will just revert to using homegrown stuff. Seriously, all they have to do is have an encrypted message end to end. Pass the stuff over SSL to rouge web sites. Not like they can start blocking all the SSL traffic.

Re:What good does it really do to block...

[smellsofbikes]

The reason (I RTFA in dead-tree form) that Saudi Arabia is blocking VoIP calls is that their stupid government *guarantees profit* for their state-sponsored telco, so VoIP, by depriving them of their legally guaranteed income, is being blocked or badly degraded.
Once other companies and countries saw that, a lot of ISP's that offer VoIP started doing the same thing to competitors' services. Kind of makes you wonder how person with ISP A's service is going to call person on ISP B's service, when each is blocking the other's service, doesn't it?

Re:What good does it really do to block...

[karmatic]

> Not like they can start blocking all the SSL traffic.

No, but they can run their own SSL proxy, with their own CA. When someone connects to blah.com via SSL, they go to blah.com, grab the cert, rip out the details and use their own key. The connection is then proxied in what is basically a man-in-the-middle attack. Sure, it would raise some errors in browsers, but they could always make the CA cert available for people who tired of those errors.

Kind of scary, isn't it?

Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies have state sanctioned/enforced monopolies and are trying to leverage it.

Re:Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies have state sanctioned/enforced monopolies and are trying to leverage it.

Which companies are you talking about?

Re:BS

[QuasiDon]

I think the article was pointing out that this is a possibility, not that they were doing it. The article was pointing out the potential dangers now that they can distinguish the types of traffic, and even deteriorate the quality if they want.

Re:BS

[Morky]

Uh, he watches Fox News. 'Nuff said.

By Law

[Anonymous Coward]

it makes possible digital wiretaps, a capability that carriers are required by law to have

which law would that be? French Wiretap law ?, German Spyonme law ? Saudi ListenIN Law ? European SniffPacket Law ?

the summmary is just incoherant babble from an American who doesn't seem to of grasped the concept of American laws do not apply in the rest of the world, just because USA is used to their totalitarian facist goverment spying on them and has laws to enable them to do it doesnt mean the rest of the world has, ..sheesh and people wonder why the word "ignorance" comes up in the same sentence as "American" much more frequently thesedays, as they say, some people really need to get out more.

Re:By Law

[Anonymous Coward]

'slong as we gots the nukes, American law applies everywhere we want it to, europussy! We'll be taking your titties off the TV next!

Re:By Law

[Xaositecte]

I hope you realize the irony that just seeps out of the pores of your post...

Re:BS

[merreborn]

...for Time Warner, which owns CNN, to charge a premium if I want to watch Fox News on my computer. Utter BS. I live in Austin, TX whom TimeWarner is my ISP. As such, I watch streaming video on Fox News website all the time. Way to go!!! Spread the FUD baby! *sigh*

Welcome to the wonderful world of analogy. TFS(ummary) is not claiming that TimeWarner is interfering with Fox News traffic. It is suggesting that such a scenario would be wrong, and anti-competative, just like foriegn telephone companies blocking VoIP traffic is.

Let the United Nations Control V.O.I.P.

[Anonymous Coward]

An article from the online edition of IEEE Spectrum says phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced they will block VoIP calls on their networks.

Are phone companies in those countries run by their governments?

Time for strong encryption.

[Control Group]

Good encryption should prevent a third party from determining any information about the payload. Bury all the protocol details in the data, initiate the session with a completely innocuous public-key encrypted exchange of symmetric keys, and proceed.

If carriers want to block all encrypted traffic, well...that's a whole different problem.

Re:Time for strong encryption.

[CastrTroy]

The problem is, how do you tell the difference between encrypted data, and random data, or image files containing encrypted data, or anything else for that matter? I don't think enough processing power in the world exists for blocking everything that may be encrypted. Unless they only allow you to pass uppercase ascii characters around the internet. And even that can be bypasses. Base 26 encoding anyone?

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

...for Time Warner, which owns CNN, to charge a premium if I want to watch Fox News on my computer.

That would be an idiot tax, not a premium.

Ebay

[certsoft]

Ebay just paid how much for Skype, like 3 or 4 billion? I wonder how long before Skype and others figure out a way around the detection algorithms.

Skype?

[autopr0n]

I was under the impressiont that skype could not be blocked, since the packets are all encrypted and contain no identifying information.

Re:BS

[uofitorn]

Just like the analogies MS uses when comparing the TCO of Windows to Linux. Just because it's an analogy doesn't mean it's not FUD.

China's National Networks...

[theCSapprentice]

Check out Narus's homepage...http://www.narus.com/

Now tell me that a company certified for China's National Networks is who we want to secure the general internet. Its almost as if they are saying YES to censorship and control. I'm not saying security is a bad thing, but pick how you do it with care...

Re:China's National Networks...

[Ilgaz]

Thanks for link, I noticed a far more interesting thing that whole company could be fake or Korea is having sort of secret contracts with major spammers.

"Huh?" you would say... It says:

"Mountain View, Calif., September 26, 2005 -- Narus, Inc., along with its channel partner Datacraft Korea, today announced that KT has expanded its network's security with use of NarusSecure. As part of Datacraft's TAPS system, NarusSecure now enables security coverage across the majority of KT's nationwide network."
http://www.narus.com/press/2005/0926b.html

Look to my mail address. I am a paid spamcop mail system customer. I also have a yahoo address. Yahoo currently gets 200 spams/week from Korea. While I was naive enough to report those spams, they were all open proxies.

I get 5 spams/day from morons spamming a spamcop.net e mail, guess who they are? Koreans.. Again.

Its not like some big, evil, spam mafia guy in Florida hacking those machines. They are pure Korean language spams coming from "open proxies".

So either Narus ripped those telcos big time or Korean government supports spamming. No other choice. They can detect such advanced P2P encrypted telephony but can't stop lame open proxies and damned port 135?

BTW Spamcop and some other ISP's use a special blocking list acting like RBL to block whole Korea netspace.

Tried in Norway and Failed

[johnjaydk]

Telenor (old Norway monopoly) tried blocking Skype and failed in a big way. The customers revolted and wanted Skype unblocked. Telenor had to reverse and unblock Skype. Major publicity bummer.

I work in one of these oldfashioned phone companies. Due to our location international charges is a large part of our intake. Therefore we dont like Skype much. In fact we'd like this whole VoIP thing to be un-invented.

We tried looking into blocking and it's bad karma all the way. Trust me, the old guys loved the idea but the publicity would kill us. In the end we have to do VoIP ourself. Better to loose business to yourself than to somebody else. This of course provides me with interesting work so I'm not complaining ;-)

Re:Tried in Norway and Failed

[sploxx]

In fact we'd like this whole VoIP thing to be un-invented.
I hope you can still seperate your personal and your company's opinion!

Re:Tried in Norway and Failed

[bahwi]

"Better to loose business to yourself than to somebody else."

Damn right. Adapt or Die.

Or, you know, lobby yourself into immortality, but that only means a slower, prolonged death.

Don't mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. It's not saying this happened or was going to happen. It just said that stopping VOIP was _like_ this. It's called a simile. I'll skip the obligitory joke about not understanding this and watching Fox News all the time.

Steve

How is this done...?

[cr0sh]

How is this software doing this? I mean, by reading about this I am imagining some form of stateful packet inspection. Wouldn't such inspection compromise the speed of the whole network? I remember such ideas being bandied about a long time ago for "detecting" pirated software transfers and such, but I also remember the argument being that it couldn't be done without compromising the speed of the entire network. Does it work like QOS routers, but in software? I am just curious how they are doing this without making life hell for everyone else on the network (because they have to inspect *every* packet)...?

Re:How is this done...?

[iluvcapra]

packets.each do |packet|
if packet.port == SKYPE_PORT then  #usually 443
        packet.destroy
    else
        praise_allah
    end #if
end #each

# TODO: detect RTP, or just pass a law or something

return

Sort Of... www.uncoverip.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Lame www.uncoverip.com

Possibilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also possible that you personally will be attacked by terrorists, struck by a extinction level asteroid, infected with bird flu, blown up by a volcano, swallowed by an earthquake and washed clean by a tsunami. But the likelihood of any of these is sufficiently slim that, were I to post such an article, I would be ridiculed for my extreme paranoia. This article is no different.

The article's author has taken events from foreign nations with vastly different infrastructures, business climates and telecom regulations and used them to jump to extreme and far fetched "conclusions" that are quite ridiculous.

Put simply the article is pure unadulterated FUD. There is no analogy here.

Re:Possibilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, I think you dropped this:

what if they break it...

[johnny cashed]

By way of latency. little more than 300milliseconds, and you can kiss VoIP goodbye. This is a problem I'm having using VoIP thru cable. I'm going to switch to DSL and see if it fixes the problem and delivers quality such that I don't get complaints.

If the cable companies introduce latency on purpose to disrupt VoIP I could see that it could result in a litigation, but what if it just happens to be inherent in the network? Or could be made inherent? With high latency, you don't break the internet, you just cripple time dependant communications.

Re:what if they break it...

[mattbee]

I had always assumed this was the reason behind the atrocious lag on mobile phone GPRS connections. You might not notice 900ms on a web connection, but it is a pain in the backside for SSH and (of course) VoIP... however the same phone still allows me to have a normal conversation without the same delay! Does anyone know more about GSM/GPRS than me to dispel this, or is this more than just a conspiracy theory?

Re:what if they break it...

[SeaFox]

If the cable companies introduce latency on purpose to disrupt VoIP I could see that it could result in a litigation, but what if it just happens to be inherent in the network? Or could be made inherent? With high latency, you don't break the internet, you just cripple time dependant communications.

It's been pointed out that as broadband providers tag packets with different "priority" codes this could happen. The provider's own phone service would be tagged this way for voice call quality, the result is everything else (like normal "internet" tagged packets that happen to be also used for VoIP) would therefore be treated as "lesser" packets and their latancy would increase.

What happens if it's inherent in the network?

Well, they just have to put up with the lousy call quality then. Eventually either market forces will cause providers to deliver better service, or VoIP will find a way to improve the technology so it is bothered less by network latancy.

Re:what if they break it...

[tylernt]

Latency is no problem if you use some kind of simplex PTT (Push-To-Talk) interface, as if you were talking over walkie-talkies.

I guess most users would hate that, though.

Just another arguement for a global wireless mesh

[Safe Sex Goddess]

Anyone interested in forming an open source non-profit to get the ball rolling on this wireless mesh hardware to replace the internet?

I can type 85 WPM and answer phones!

Can we make a 1st amendment exception?

[hellfire]

or for Time Warner, which owns CNN, to charge a premium if I want to watch Fox News on my computer.

That may not necessarily be a bad thing. Anything that keeps idiots from watching people who take advantage of idiots is fine by me.

But then online games suffer and Microsoft...

[SuperKendall]

If they increase latency, online games start to suffer - and if Microsoft finds out it is happening they bring down the mightly legal hammer.

But I really don't think the cable companies are sophisticaed enough to pull this out wihtout breaking other things as well.

Re:But then online games suffer and Microsoft...

[johnny cashed]

Good point, I don't participate in online games. Unless you count slashdot as a game of sorts.

Re:But then online games suffer and Microsoft...

[Professor_UNIX]

With online gaming if you're pinging higher than 50ms you are a dead man these days... or they'll just kick you from the server for being a god damn lagger.

Re:But then online games suffer and Microsoft...

[JPriest]

I don't many cable companies really view VoIP as the enemy. I wouldn't worry.

Re:But then online games suffer and Microsoft...

[AstroDrabb]

I don't many cable companies really view VoIP as the enemy. I wouldn't worry.

Actually they do. Many cable companies are now offering their own "digital" phone. My wife just signed us up for it here in central FL with Brighthouse. We now have digital cable, digital phone and high speed Internet through Brighthouse. I am sure that the cable companies would rather have you pay them ~$40 a month for unlimited nation wide digital phone than see you get very cheap or even free VoIP like Skype, etc.

I have never tried Skype or the others, I wonder if Brighthouse is introducing latency into VoIP traffic? Has anyone noticed poor VoIP performance here in the USA over cable modem or DSL?

Re:But then online games suffer and Microsoft...

[JPriest]

Just because they are offering VoIP does not mean VoIP is the enemy. If people are using Skype/Vonage etc. it reduces the chances of them defecting to satelite. You could still go to DSL, but expect to pay more for it if you don't have local phone service through the same company. VoIP even if the cable companies are not selling it is a good thing for cable companies. This is not even taking ninto account legal reprocusions for intentionally blocking people phone service or backlash from customer agression. If anyone, the LEC's may try something that stupid but it is really not in the cable companies best interest. I honestly don't subscribe to this VoIP blocking doomsday scenario (at least from a cable perspective).

it's a sad sad day when American companies do this

[Hoohoodilly]

This is on the level of the article a few days ago about US companies helping China and other countries with their Internet content-blocking abilities. My question is who in their right mind would work for a company that writes software limiting consumer rights?

I think this really boils down to greed, which is more and more the motivating force in capitalism today. Can't we all just get along, and go back to the days when innovation was that driving force? Some companies don't have any values or ethics these days and in this case probably saw a product they could market to these fascists. Maybe I should write my Congressman about making it illegal for US companies help deteriorate basic civil and human rights. Or maybe that advocacy group is doing just that.

PC to PC

[Psx29]

Maybe I didn't read through the article well enough but what about calls that only go over the internet will these be blocked as well?

I smell a big lawsuit...

[Anonymous Coward]

... if any ISP were to start doing this.

The ISPs advertise internet service. You can get them under false advertising laws.

A more likely scenario is the ISPs start delaying & dropping these packets. That way the user will be more likely to blame the voip provider...

Thank you

[johnny cashed]

For informing us that the bell(s) are beginning to see the light. One of the first things they could do to prevent migration to VoIP is to include all the extra features like caller ID and other value added features in with basic phone service. VoIP is the future of telecommunications. It runs on data networks, and we all know data networks aren't going away anytime soon.

Re:Thank you

[gregmac]

One of the first things they could do to prevent migration to VoIP is to include all the extra features like caller ID and other value added features in with basic phone service. VoIP is the future of telecommunications. It runs on data networks, and we all know data networks aren't going away anytime soon.

That is definately a good idea. Another would be to reduce or remove long-distance charges. Although there are various companies that charge lower long distance (many I'm sure using Voip), this needs to be much more widespread. I don't know how long-distance charging works, but it needs to be much more like how tier-1 ISPs peer for free with each other. If it already is, then it's just pure profit for them.. so they'll have to be willing to take a cut in that profit to prevent losing it altogher.

What would be even better would be to blur the line between VoIP and POTS. Provide digital service (even voip) right from the CO, then throw it on the TDM network. Provide some of the benefits of VoIP (multiple concurrent calls, digital signalling (ie, instant caller id)) without the problems that VoIP has on the internet (latency, outages).

At my small business, we use VoIP internally for our phone system, but also as a backup line. We have 3 voice POTS lines, which all hunt from our main number. The last one hunts to a VoIP 'wholesale' (no voicemail, call waiting, etc services -- our phone system does that stuff) number, where we can accept as many calls as we have bandwidth (and we have a decent chunk of bandwidth). We also use the VoIP line for outgoing long-distance calls, or if the POTS lines are all used up. This effectively gives us "unlimited" call handling capability, for much much much less than it would cost to have 3 or 6 or 10 more phone lines. We just pay a littler over a cent a minute, plus a couple dollars a month for a DID (local phone number). The phone companies have a way to go before they're going to be able to match that and that's probably what has them scared.

Of course, blocking VoIP seems very dumb. If my ISP was my phone company, and they blocked my VoIP calls, my response would be to get a new ISP -- not say "oh well, I guess I'll just pay more for a less-capable analog phone line". Not only are they driving away voice customers, but they're driving away their internet customers as well.

Re:Thank you

[ockegheim]

I can't say this for sure, but I don't imagine you'd spoiled for choice as far as phone companies in Riyadh.

They'd better not....

[dslauson]

The only phone service in my house is Vonage. If my ISP were to try to block or restrict that, you'd better believe I wouldn't be switching over to their phone service. I'd be getting a new ISP.

So, if it's an all (buy their phone service AND their internet access) or nothing kind of thing, from me they'll get nothing.

Re:They'd better not....

[legirons]

"The only phone service in my house is Vonage. If my ISP were to try to block or restrict that, you'd better believe I wouldn't be switching over to their phone service. I'd be getting a new ISP."

If they blocked your VoIP, couldn't you just report them for preventing your access to 911 on that connection?

Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

Having the misfortune to live in Germany, I can't say that I am surprised to see that German Telecom providers (namely Deutsche Telekom (DT)) acting in a monopolistic way. German companies often act in this way as they lack the flexibility to compete internationally due to mindnumbing quantities of Red Tape and restrictive labor laws. Somehow German companies have their own way of interpreting laws about cartels and getting away with it.

What I am surprised about, is that DT has the ability to use this technology to stop VoIP. I thought they were the finest and last steam powered telephone company in the world. Dealing with these guys is like being stuck in the Monty Python Gas Board sketch.

Since Ebay has such a big presence in Germany it could be that they will lobby to get this practice changed as it would impact their plans to sell everyone's Skype details to the highest bidder.

And as for France... surely it's a good thing that they can't call anyone?

So, maybe banning VoIP ain't soooo bad .....

Re:Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

Having the misfortune to live in Germany, I can't say that I am surprised to see that German Telecom providers (namely Deutsche Telekom (DT)) acting in a monopolistic way.

Too bad the article is just talking about Vodafone, the cell phone provider. It does not mention DT at all.

Nah, you're reading it wrong.

[fireboy1919]

He meant "dye," as in "tie-dye." He want the Bells to become a bunch of peaceniks, and tie-dyeing their clothing is the first step.

Right on, brother. Give peace a chance.
Flower power over IP.

Can I disagree with this and still be a liberal?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Liberal, I value freedom. These networks should have the freedom to do business however they please. But of course, I don't like this at all. Can I still be a Liberal and despise this?

steganography

[MoFoQ]

This will probably lead to some sort of packet steganography and encryption which will make digital taps harder to do and "the terrorists will win."

Of course, spoofing the packets to look like non-VoIP packets might be a workaround.

It's all a cat-and-mouse game until someone files a lawsuit.

What me Worry about the Man

[djdavetrouble]

Which 'Man' are you talking about?

Round these parts, we are talking about Alfred E. NewMAN But there are those who say we are MAD ! Thats just humor in a jugular vein, though....

Re:fp

[johnny cashed]

Nth post!

Re:BS

[Jherek Carnelian]

I watch streaming video on Fox News website all the time.

And unlike watching fox news on most televisions, when you watch it via streaming, Fox watches you back. You could be getting 'customized' news already and wouldn't even know it.

Some ads I'd miss

[phorm]

You know, I think that while advertisers in some situations have gotten more annoying, in other ways they've gotten smarter. 10 years ago, I highly doubt anyone would have yelled to me (while I'm getting a snack during a commercial break, etc) "hey, come back here and check out this *product X* commercial, it's hilarious." I've seen some commercials for products such as Molson Canadian that were often more entertaining than the shows.

Sadly, Molson will no longer make the "I am Canadian" ads since they joined up to become Molson-Coors, citing it might damage international relations. But there are plenty of other great commercials out there, so much that there are even websites dedicated to them

As telecommunications become more digital, I think systems such as 'commercial feedback' could become very useful. Click a button on your remote and rate the current commercial... and perhaps future advertisers will learn to make commercials that don't suck as less-rated commercials get blocked by TIVOs and their ilk.

Raising a good point - online games for talk

[SuperKendall]

As you say a number of FPS's have voice built in. So if they shut down VOIP what's to stop people from just using games ONLY as chatting mechanisms?

Re:Raising a good point - online games for talk

[kd5ujz]

Spawn killing.

Re:Raising a good point - online games for talk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey, grandma. Just called to wish you a happy birth-"

"0wn3d!"

"Grandma, I'm on your team. Stop fragging your own team."

"lol!"

"So, Grandma? What's been keeping you busy since-"

"u r l4m3! ph33r m3!!!!"

"Sigh. It's been nice chatting, grandma."

"wuss"

I think *that* is what would stop it.

Re:Raising a good point - online games for talk

[JPriest]

"what's to stop people from just using games ONLY as chatting mechanisms?"

And I thought I lived an isolated life.

Re:Raising a good point - online games for talk

[zuki]

Yes, very much reminds me of the Jack Nicholson bit in "Five Easy Pieces" where he isn't allowed to just order a couple of slices of bread.

"Yeah, I'd like a tuna salad sandwich on whole wheat, hold the lettuce, hold the tuna, hold the mayo and just bring me the &#^$%# toast..."

I could definitely see some game sales skyrocketing because their VOIP is crystal clear, and they allow online games with only (!) two players from their servers. LOL!!

Z.

Narus

[Rac3r5]

Its pretty sad when companies like NARUS do things like this. What happended to Corporate Responsibility?

I watched 'Lord of War' recently, where Nicholas Cage acts as Yuri Orlov an arms dealer. He clears away his guilt by saying its not him doing the killing, he's just selling the weapons; and if he doesn't sell arms, it would be someone else.

NARUS seems to be no better.

Re:Narus

[fimbulvetr]

It was a service, and it has a market. It will be thought up, and it will be sold. For every 1 person that wouldn't do it, there's a 1000 people who would. As you and I know by now, we cannot expect people to take the responsible path, only the money path. I haven't read the comments, so this may be redundant, but I think skype should just start encrypting their traffic with ssl or some other fast encryption methods. Of course, this requires bit more bandwidth, and ups the requirements for the client's hardware, but they either have to adapt or they will fail.

Re:Narus

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched 'Lord of War' recently, where Nicholas Cage acts as Yuri Orlov an arms dealer. He clears away his guilt by saying its not him doing the killing, he's just selling the weapons; and if he doesn't sell arms, it would be someone else.

Did you pay to watch the movie? Did you know that the producers of 'Lord of War' employed known arms smugglers during the making of the movie? Do you clear away your guilt by saying that it's not you doing the killing; it's just you giving money to someone else who gives the money to someone else who uses the money to support the selling of weapons to someone else who distributes the weapons to those who actually do the killing? Or maybe you clear away your guilt by remaining ignorant of these facts? Or do you argue that you are not guilty because you are sufficiently insulated by enough steps in the chain?

I for one....

[Anonym1ty]

As an American I am proud to say I'm glad I don't have to talk to France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If they are so much holier than us, fine. Let them go. It's going to be more of a burden to them than it will be to us and the rest of the world. The world is changing, you can either change with it or fade in to obscurity.

Re:I for one....

[FrankieBegbie]

Wouldn't you feel prouder if you actually did talk to them and help them out, rather than being holier-than-thou and dismissing it as somebody else's problem?

There's also the rather glaring fact that this article is about phone companies, not entire countries - please take the time to read at least the summary before knee-jerking. Corporate entities are not countries.

Re:I for one....

[6*7]

You will be really proud when you find out where Narus it's HQ is located.

So once again:

• helping block citizens internet access in allied countries internet: GOOD
• helping block citizens internet access in evil countries: BAD

Re:I for one....

[Anonym1ty]

Why is it always OUR responsibility to help all these people ?
Why can't these people do things on their own?
It is their problem, they caused it and they get to live with it.
Corporate entities in states that control corporations are countries.

In countries where the state controls the phone company, the phone company's policy is the state's policy.

FCC VoIP 911 Requirements

[Anonymous Writer]

FTA...

"But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," Thomas says. "So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it."

Couldn't the FCC requirements that VoIP provide access to 911 emergency services be used as a legal precedent against carriers from degrading VoIP services in the US? If Vonage got in trouble for it, then any company that interferes with the call should be liable as well. Even if it isn't outright blocking the call, artificially deteriorating the quality could prevent proper communication in an emergency and endanger lives. Even jitter and latency in the call could possibly mean the difference between life and death in a critical situation.

Perfect timing

[davmoo]

And this is precisely why control of the internet should not be moved out of the United States. Imagine what these twits could do if they had control of root servers.

Re:Perfect timing

[Cytlid]

Mod parent up. I was just going to say... compare the list of countries who wanted more control of the root dns servers to the ones who want to do this.

Re:Perfect timing

[SillyNickName4me]

I just wonder, how big an idiot do you have to be to not know the difference between countries and companies that happen to be in those countries?

Chess

[johnny cashed]

Online chess would not be affected. Turn based games would still work. FPS, yes, you would be a dead man.

VPNs

[xrayspx]

We need a free ad-hoc P2P VPN application. As the call is made, you make a temporary VPN to the remote end with some throwaway key that is agreed upon programmatically and encrypt all packets, when the call ends, it gets torn down. For VOIP calls the encryption wouldn't have to be great, but if we could run the call through even a single DES end-to-end VPN, that would take care of the phone companies terminating the calls.

Call quality can suffer over a VPN, but with a high-bandwidth connection, one call won't make a bit of difference, 20 or 30 calls might be a problem.

I'm not saying the encryption SHOULDN'T be great, but compared to a regular phone, I mean, I can stand outside your house and clip two alligator clips to the box and hear your regular phone calls...

Re:VPNs

[glomph]

You are correct, but the nature of the session will have to be COMPLETELY free of any characteristic signature, or this evil Nazi-box will be able to block it. It will also have to be totally independent of a unique 'mothership', because THAT would be trivial to block. The earlier suggestion of SSL on port 443 sounds pretty good, but that is TCP traffic, which sucks under many circumstances for voice.

I run phone calls across the world through CIPE tunnels (UDP) for corporate security between internal offices. The VPN in this case has no discernible effect on sound quality, except a tiny additional chunk of latency.

Re:VPNs

[xrayspx]

If it uses standard IPSEC, then it would be indistiguishable from the "work-at-home" type folks logging into their office to get mail or whatever.

I've got several dozen concurrent calls travelling over VOIP as well, and we've found that for our purposes it was much better to just get point to point frames and bond them then to try and use VPNs for anything. But for an individual call, the IPSEC overhead shouldn't matter at all. And if it's just a "phony" IPSEC connection, the two machines could negotiate it quickly and in the clear if you want.

I was thinking also SSL with self-signed certs or some other faux-secure solution. In my mind it would again be alright since if you're calling someone, you probably know them enough to trust them, and if someone spoofs it, then you'll pretty much know that, "hey, that doesn't sound like my mom/sister/whoever".

Not that security should be ignored, but again, the analog phone argument comes up, and self-signed SSL is just as encrypted anyway, you just have to be able to trust the signor.

Re:VPNs

[Phil Karn]

Who says it has to be TCP traffic? To pass the filter, it only has to look like TCP traffic.

TCP is an end-to-end protocol. It's only a convention (though one very widely followed) that putting a "6" in the "protocol" field of an IPv4 header means that what follows is a standard TCP header defined in RFC793 et al. But nothing requires that this be so if the end points agree on other meanings.

It's time for a general-purpose tunneling protocol specifically designed to thwart any and all port and protocol blocking in the network when it is not desired by consenting endpoints. Nothing past the IP header was ever meant for the eyes of an intermediate router, and filtering on the basis of those post-IP headers was never considered in the design of the Internet protocols.

And so the end-to-end principle will survive, and the world's telcos will be brought, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Or they will be left behind.

Re:VPNs

[rthomanek]

http://www.hamachi.cc/ looks like P2P VPN application. I have yet to try it, but from the description:

Hamachi is a zero-configuration virtual networking application enabling secure direct communications between any two computers on the Internet regardless of the presence of firewalls or address translation devices on the route between them. In particular, it can create true peer-to-peer network between two computers each residing behind its own broadband router.

I am not really sure about the protocol they are using, looks kinda shady at the first glance.

Re:VPNs

[sploxx]

We need a free ad-hoc P2P VPN application.

That's the usual cat-and-mouse game. I'd rather have some regulation, yes regulation (it's a bad word here, isn't it? :) in place that prevents my provider from filtering or fiddling with any traffic if it advertises a TCP/IP internet connection.

I want raw IP, no modifications. Maybe for some people content filtering (virus protection etc.) would be a service, but that should be entirely optional.

Re:VPNs

[xrayspx]

That's absolutely right. And the more I think about my knee-jerk original post, the more I disagree with myself. Primarily because I am unwilling to sit at my computer and make phone calls. If I were to use VOIP, I would want a phone that just plugs in and is treated like any other phone.

I already have to sysadmin my house, I'm on the verge of having to sysadmin my stereo or TV, and I refuse to sysadmin my phone.

I have a dream. I mean a nightmare.

[WarmNoodles]

Some day soon the internet and successors will be nothing more than a huge pile of steaming crap thanks to unrestrained stupidity outlined in TFA.
Well soon enough, they will have their own DNS roots, we will have a fractured net. Two tier 1 providers down.
The net is simply reflecting the dysfunctional family or morons who have come to 'believe' they run it.
--
Bah. Let it all burn.

Re:I have a dream. I mean a nightmare.

[johnny cashed]

nightmares are dreams too. It just makes the internet(s?) more exciting. I'm sure there are already "undergound" networks that are linked to the "internet". It will be like the BBS days, only better. One man's fractured net is another's opportunity. Psst, want a gateway connection to europe? Believe me, the cat is out of the bag. Long live the internet. But I'm sure it might go through a huge pile of steaming crap phase before it mutates. You just can't stop free porn.

Clarify

[dslauson]

Something TFA didn't make as clear as they could have-

The article is referring to phone companies that also have an ISP service trying to block voip data from travelling over their internet service.

That's as opposed to not allowing their land-line phone customers to recieve voip calls.

It just seemed like some people were confused.

Poor Intel misunderstood?

[Ilgaz]

(censoring company www site, http://www.narus.com/about/investors.html )
___
The Intel Communications Fund is a $500M equity investment fund that invests in technology companies developing innovative networking and communications solutions. The fund supports development of technologies for Intel® Internet Exchange(TM) Architecture, telephony applications based on CT Media(TM) and wireless and cellular solutions built around the Intel® Personal Internet Client Architecture and the Intel® Xscale(TM) Microarchitecture. In addition, the fund is expected to invest in applications and systems companies supporting other Intel voice and data communications initiatives.
___

I think they misunderstood companies business while giving them $500M for voice communications ;)

voip is the future but?

[digitallysick]

Voip is hard for me to understand, in the fact that the major bell compaines were broke up, to not have a "monolopy" now years later they have over turned that FCC rule, so now verzion got MCI, bellsouth got at &t, etc, so now its back to the bigger almost "ma bell" like it used to be. With carriers like comcast, and roadrunner, etc it seems like no one would want regular phone service anymore and everyone would use cable (after all why pay for dsl (which you almost always have to have phone service for) so its almost always dsl+ phone service = expensive. Seems like everyone would be on cable useing voip, and that all the phone compaines would go under?? wont be long until the FCC puts a stop to it, and regulates it to the point of being more expenisve that regular phone services

Good question

[Penguinoflight]

I think this is the better answer to the overall problem. When you pay for a phone line to your house, you buy it so people can call you. When the phone companies implement a POTS (T is optional in this case) they are supposed to accept calls. My guess is that a consumer group should go after companies that use this software feature, backed by users of said companies.

"I guess this is illegal in my country (Brasil)."
Funny thing about the law, that usually doesn't matter. Also think about the how much laws can change from country to country, even when they share borders (Canada and U.S. rules about TV rebroadcasting come to mind). In the case of TV rebroadcasting Canada shut down a lot of internet rebroadcasts just because the US government (backed by media companies) strong armed them.

This is one of those problems that theoretically shouldn't be completely fixable, but everyone knows that it is from past experiences.

It's the advertizers fault

[grahamsz]

Yesterday i saw a new Geico commercial while fast forwarding and actually stopped rewound watched it, called the wife through and watched it again.

If advertizers would have spent the cash to create decent, entertaining, and memorable commercials then we'd have less need for tivo and they'd be doing a lot better right now.

don't block VoIP, just make it suck

[werelnon]

A much better strategy was already covered by slashdot a few months ago. The telcos just need to make other VoIP solutions suck, via COS (Class of Service). Then no one can get mad at them and they can roll out their own high quality VoIP solution.

--
The Switchboard - the free browser based internet phone

No VOIP system will dare oppose the Emperor now.

[jonthegm]

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Yet another...

[Telastyn]

Real life example why infrastructure should be commonly owned.

Re:Yet another...

[Lehk228]

do you want the fundies demanding that since their tax dollars pay for the internet porn on the internet should be illegal?

Looks like 1984 type company

[Ilgaz]

Check http://www.narus.com/press/index.html , don't buy any service from company who is their client.

Its much more than Skype, SIP blocking people. If a company is using their products, they are watching everything. Check their products page.

http://www.narus.com/solutions/IPanalysis.html

They brag about Telecom Egypt using their software/platform, they have rather interesting banner "bragging" about "Certified for China's national networks".

I would switch my cell phone, ISP immediately if they are using any of this companies products.

Its not Skype only.

Heineken???

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that shit. Pabst! Blue! Ribbon!

Make Port Number part of VOIP Phone Number

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply make the port number part of the "phone number" that is used to establish a connection with the person on the other end. Use an algorithm that selects a port from 1024-32767 based on the "phone number" and a UTC time dependent number (perhaps the current hour.) Added with encryption for privacy, then there is no real way to identify VOIP communication, especially from other types of data such as FTP.

Since the recipient knows his/her own port number, too, the recipient's VOIP client can leave open the port (or set of ports) open on its own firewall.

I don't really see how they are going to block VOIP traffic. Its a futile game.

Not a chance

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck to the European phone companies with that one, totally illegal, they'll be brought straight to the European Court of Justice.

Shouldn't you be in Bible class or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be (c. 1800) that American ideals were an enlightened inspiration for all humanity. Now it seems it just means Jesus and guns. Good luck with that.

In Europe? No way

[Nicolas MONNET]

The EU has vigorously promoted competition in the telecom business, with significant success so far. As for ISPs blocking VoIP calls in France, for instance, fat chance. Most ISPs already offer free local calls with multifunction ADSL modems. I understand the article refers implicitly to call phone carriers; but you have to keep in mind that those currently are under investigation for price fixing. That would be a very stupid way for them to quickly get the anti-monopoly agency and the telecom regulation agency pounding frantically on their asses.

Taxes

[tsotha]

My suspicion is the reason they're getting away with this has more to do with the fact that POTS is a cash cow for governments as well as phone companies. Here in the US state governments are terrified of VOIP because they count on POTS for a not-insignificant portion of revenues.

in other countries

[gullevek]

eg Japan, there isn't one provider that doesn't give you VoIP with a real telefone number, etc etc and really low charges. I mean, really low ones ... So there is no need for me to call with Skype ...

No VPNs, eh?

[jd]

SSL is a mechanism that allows you to tunnel a protocol (usually HTTP) through another protocol. All a VPN is is a logical separation of two traffic streams, which means SSL is arguably a VPN mechanism. That must be a bummer for all those online shoppers. The same would be true of DNSSEC, so I hope nobody is getting trustworthy DNS records. IPv6 tunnels and MBone tunnels would certainly fall under that categorization.

In other words, the policy bans virtually everything that anyone ever actually does. It would seem to me that it is less a policy of prohibition, and more a catch-all, so that if you do something they don't like, they have a rule you are 100% guaranteed to have broken, whether or not what they didn't like actually violated the ToS.

To me, such an approach is wide open to abuse (they can do what the hell they like, when they like, to whom they like) and is the sort of approach to governance more often associated with third-world dictators. On the other hand, those companies that have clear, precise, enforced and obscenely over-the-top rules are more remeniscent of extremist Islamic nations.

Why we can't have corporations that exist in THIS century, rather than in political systems that were fashionable a few thousand years ago, is beyond me. Political systems are primitive at best, but they have at least evolved since the fall of Rome.

Re:No VPNs, eh?

[bill_mcgonigle]

SSL is arguably a VPN mechanism

You'd have a hard time convincing anybody that a connection where you don't get a foreign IP address is a VPN.

WTO : I don't think.

[DrYak]

The problem is that some less liberal country still have state monopoly over phone lines and have declared illegal all other phone providers.
The VoIP providers have to comply to those local laws inside specific a country and have to collaborate with the state monopoly.
But maybe they could invoke WTO if the state impose inacceptable prices ?

Can the WTO atack a *nation* ?

Re:Just another arguement for a global wireless me

[Anonymous Coward]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

stardestroyer.net

[Sir_Eptishous]

"You were right about one thing, Master: The negotiations were short."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi to Qui-Gon Jinn after the two Jedi are treacherously attacked by the Trade Federation.

Central database?

[kd5ujz]

I thought a few companys used databases for user info ( ip address, additional land line numbers). Why not have a port added into that info, that way when you look up someones ip address ( or rather your software looks it up) it would also get a dynamic/static port on the client. If they are just blocking ports, this should cut down on it. If they are examining individal packets, I dont know what you could do. Have a set number of data bits, then a checksum assigned to each user to vary the data structure. If they are examining each packet, I would think that would cause major latancy issues.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. Non-knuckle dragging technophiles watch FOXNews? I thought that was just for the luddite/isolationist/bigot crowd.

Fox News...on a computer?

[daigu]

I cannot imaging wanting to watch Fox News at all....but on a computer? You got larger problems my friend.

The other way around.

[DrYak]

Skype is encrypted voice data encaspulated inside a easily recognized skype protocol.
You cannot eavesdrop, because the voice it self is encrypted, but everything else is clear.
(For the simple reason that Skype is a P2P protocol, so every intermediate Peer *NEED* access to the data necessary for routing those crypted voice packets to the next peer.)
So the telcos need only to block "Skype packets" (known port, known header) even if they can't decypher the attached data.

I think the parent poster was more thinking of something like classic VoIP protocol over crypted channels.
Like SIP over SSH (not yet developped, but could be), or H323 over VPN tunnel (already feasible with today's technology),
or using 2nd generation onion routing like TOR and I2P that provide general purpose TCP transport (because it's just a TCP transport, it could be easily done. It's already used in some P2P clients like Azureus).

In this particular context, telcos cannot block VoIP specifically, because it is some general kind of packets (SSH or VPN packets) containing encrypted data, which itself is secure. And because telco cannot decypher the attached data, they cannot know if the encrypted channel is transmitting VoIP, or other stuff (SSH used for e-banking, VPN used to connect to work, ...).
So either they block *ALL* secure traffic, or they let flow the encrypted data which may be VoIP.

The problem is, the kind of less liberal countries that to have a law-enforced state monopoly over telephone, can also be countries where secure channels like these are prohibited by law.
On the other hand The Great Firewall of China is a typical exemple of state censorship, but VPN, SSH and TOR flow freely without being blocked (they only block specific websites and some keywords in search engines).
So maybe the only problem to consider is if the VoIP can still be performed with the overhead of these systems.

Re:The other way around.

[A5un]

SIP over TLS has already been developed. There are already an abundance of RFC's for this. There are also several proxies and endpoints that support this already. SRTP for the media stream has also been done for at least one endpoint that I know of.

Just a possibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I currently live in Egypt and Skype is still working for me. As far as I know, other VoIP programs also work. Then again, I am not certain that my Internet connection is routed through Egypt Telecom, though it seems that it is the big (if not the only) player in the upper tier market here. It would certainly be a pain in the arse if Skype were to be blocked because regular phone call froms Egypt to the US are about 40 cents a minute.

FoxNews

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting people still use the words "Fox" and "News" in the same sentence lol. :-)

Here, Telcos and Cablecos are offering VOIP

[QuebecNerd]

Quite the oposite from France... Here in Québec, The two major Telcos wich are Bell Canada and Telus and the two major Cablecos wich are Videotron and Cogéco are all offering VOIP as we speak.

Since they are offering the service, I guess they would be very stupid to block it... Talk. about shooting yourself in the foot.

Today, companies are fighting any way they can to remain relevant in today's world. They can do that in two ways; Making the right moves at the right time to stay relevant like for example Koday did in the face of digital photography nearly 10 years ago OR forcing their clients to consider them relevant by screwing them when they don't have a choice (FOR NOW) like the RIAA and the CellCos do.

Sufice to say that this can only last for a given time and people remeber who screwed them...

Re:Here, Telcos and Cablecos are offering VOIP

[QuebecNerd]

And BTW, the most agressive offer is from Telus. It's at least 10$ less than Vonage. The other players aligned themselves with Vonage @ 39.95$ for the unlimited package. With all the companies we can keep our current home phone number wich is neat.

Re:Here, Telcos and Cablecos are offering VOIP

[grumling]

Quite the oposite from France... Here in Québec, The two major Telcos wich are Bell Canada and Telus and the two major Cablecos wich are Videotron and Cogéco are all offering VOIP as we speak.

Since they are offering the service, I guess they would be very stupid to block it... Talk. about shooting yourself in the foot.

They can block other company's VoIP packets, while running their own at a much higher priority than the normal web surfing type packets.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Stephen Ma]

One of the clearest and most insightful articles I have read on /. in a long while. Wish I had mod points today.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. France, Germany, and other backwards Arab states can cut themselves off from the rest of the world. While competitive VOIP becomes popular and cheap in the civilized world, these countries can continue languish and punish themselves for their own stupidity.

Technology Leader

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly all these companies realize China has the best blocking system ... Once again Chinese went ahead of the trend.

Who cares!

[Treacle Treatment]

Fuck France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I never call there anyway nor would I want to!

I wasn't aware of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you provide some ref/links, *PLEEAASE ?*

Re:I wasn't aware of this.

[A5un]

As I know, TLS support for SIP proxy is available for ser in their CVS version. Check out iptel.org/ser for details. Repro proxy from SipFoundry also has TLS support. Endpoints that support TLS include Snom hardphone and Xten's softphone. As for SRTP support, there are still much debate about which standard to use. Sipura has this in some version of their firmware. Check out voip-info.org for more details.

Speaking of Ma Bell...

[timmerk15]

Look at this ! You can buy a Bell System payphone: http://thelounge.org/payphone/ It looks to be in great shape. Who wants to give this old lad $250 for it? That brings back phreaker memories. LOL

RIAA Phones?

[Humphro]

Anyone else noticing a similar mentality here?

All persons must die

[arcaneman]

Corporations are treated as legal persons and like all people they will vehemently fight for life as death looms close. At times Coporations should accepted a peaceful and dignified death in order to best serve the public good. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" -The Vulcans

Where's the interception?

[krunk4ever]

I was wondering just where the interception may occur. Is it within the internet or is it within the regular phone lines? I'm not too familiar with how the transition from internet -> phone works, but I'm guessing VoIP companies have these major nodes that allow to make many phone calls from just 1 node. And these nodes are where they're connected to the internet.

So if I was a phone company, I can block at 2 possible points:

* 1. If someone is using dialup or dsl, then I'd be able to stop any VoIP packets from going out or coming into the modem. However, if I use cable internet or some other form of connection (such as direct connection to the backbone), then I can bypass this block.

* 2. It blocks at the point when the data is already voice on the phone lines. If they're blocking at this point, where you can't physically connect to a telephone, I'm curious on how they can tell the difference between digital cell phone calls and voip calls. Both are digital and have lower quality. I guess you can tell by the phone # that's making the call, but if you can do that already, why not just stop the serivice of these VoIP nodes?

Fortunately, the U.S. controls the Internet or....

[Alascom]

Many Slashdot readers have commented that the United States is arrogant in demanding to maintain control of Internet governance, such as this thread and also this one...

Thankfully, the U.S. has refused the call for Internationalization as we can clearly see how other, less free-market/capitalist, governments would run things...

Not any french phone company

[aepervius]

The one wanting to block the call is SFR a wireless french phone company. Granted I ve been away from France from 10 years or so, but as far as I recall they do not have any landline. Meaning any call made to their wireless network will be expansive, especially if this is skype where they get nothing in exchange. This is why they want to block VOIP. France Telecom (which is now I think partially private ??) is the land carrier with the most traffic if this did not change in the last years and is not mentionned in the article.

Just stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not our fault that these old fashioned telephone companies have an outdated business model. If they try degrading my service in this way, I shall switch to another ISP, and make a complaint to the regulator for anti-competitive behaviour. Fortunately, I don't think such protectionist measures are actually legal in my country.

you mean BT?

[fantomas]

nah, ya mean "everywhere you go there's BT", even the Americans have a kinda BT, even though their telephone boxes kinda look and work funny and they ring the wrong number for emergency services ;-)

Subscription services

[Per Abrahamsen]

My guess is that this will speed up the transition to subscription services. Advertisement financed television is already economically a poor deal for almost all viewers. You get in average US$ 2 worth of content for each hour of advertisement you watch, which is not an hourly rate most people would work for.

As more financially secure viewers swicth to advertisment free subscription services, the remaining viewers become less attractive for advertisers, and subscription services will have even more money to produce quality content.

My guess is that advertisement financed television will basically be TV-Shop in a few years. Maybe with a bit more variation in target audience.

France Telecom offers VOIP in Italy!

[donstenk72]

Ironically France telecom is one of the main players in the commercial VOIP field in Italy offering unlimited calls within Europe for a flat rate of 25 euro per month through it parla.it subsidiary. This whilst using your your POTS phones connected to their router.

Whilst this is a good thing in a country still plagued by outragious international rates (from 18ct/min within EU!) I find it ridiculous that they want to block it on their home-turf. It could be a case of a (too) large company not knowing what the other leg is doing but this smells bad. I would not be surprised about Telecom Italia blocking all VOIP over the backbones other then their own flavour. I am allready suspiciuous by the common Skype disconnections in a conversation (something that did not happen in Holland) - but then again nobody is surprised as it happens with the POTS lines too!

I still can use VoIP in Saudi

[mahesh_gharat]

I'm staying in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I'm still happily using Skype for my international calls.
I also work for the Saudi Telecom Company (STC) in IT Planning Department. I still haven't came across such an appliance or product which will block the VoIP trafic. Maybe the ball is still in the management's court.

Nonsense.

[Cinquero]

Again: that is nonsense. No company may tell you how you use your internet. Still another totally dumb slashdot story. Argh.

Currently in Egypt - no noticable effect as of yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been running Yahoo messenger with voice/video for well over a year and started using Skype about a month ago. I know of numerous peope in the expat community here in Egypt that use VoIP to include Skype and Vonage. It's funny that they mention they are already working with Egypt Telecom, because they are in charge of it all and I haven't heard of a single blocked VoIP connection. I hope it doesn't kick in anytime soon, at least until I leave in the Spring. Skype is a lifeline here to friends and family in the US, so is Yahoo messenger. I wonder if this new blocking will include Yahoo Messenger.

But it's been brought up a few times, will this really block Skype? Skype is encrypted, thus encrypting the actual communication. Perhaps the intial connections are made unencrypted, thus identifying Skype. I could see that quickly fixed by Skype. I doubt that Egypt or any other country will totally block all encrypted connections, thus dealing a death blow to internet commerce. I could see North Korea doing it, but that's because they are nuts.

If my Skype goes down anytime soon, I'll be sure to post something.

EULA text length & ADD dont mix well

[Anonymous Coward]

I read something very interesting in 1 of your postings here where you started up an argument with somebody here and where you lost badly because of it: The fact is, you are afflicted with add (I read that on your website also before you pulled it down no less because it was used as evidence against you too). I somehow doubt you have the ability to read an EULA end to end without becoming confused, so you really are the last person who ought to be talking out of his behind on this topic and no doubt the last person anyone will listen to on that account due to your mental problems.

Re:EULA text length & ADD dont mix well

[interiot]

Hi APK, good to see you're still around. :)

Did you go on vacation or something? I think the people at the Memory-Optimization Hoax thread were worried about you...

Re:EULA text length & ADD dont mix well

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, Interiot you're admittedly afflicted mentally with add, so listen up real well and concentrate.

You have 26 foes you list of them and I could be any one of those people. The problem with making enemies is the fact you have made so many enemies. That's your own doing.

I am just one that has been waiting for you to screw up some more and lay the smack down on you. You provided me that opportunity with this one.

You posted here that you have add:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162012&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=0&tid=126&mode=thread&cid=136258 65

---------

From this url

http://www.paperlined.org/bio/fucked_up.html [paperlined.org]

Interiot's website (which this page he took down for some odd reason lol)

"sort of like autism (antisocial, high IQ, some sensory sensitivities), though not nearly as severe as autism
doesn't like to look eye-to-eye with others
doesn't like to touch others
preoccupation with things
need a certain level of stimulation to function properly (though not nearly as bad as autism)
not any relatives to autism, except for sensory integration dysfunction or autistic spectrum
Visuospatial thinking preferred
These autistic traits may be beneficial for some disciplines like science, mathematics, engineering
though not these:
Poor use and understanding of nonverbal communication (i.e., facial expressions and body language) [as far as I can tell... I'm not very bad at these]
Poor understanding of abstract thought, metaphors, and symbolism
Peculiar clothing and food preferences
aspbergers
mild level of pedantic language... more anal than others, and like humor more than others, but not outside of normal
orderly things have appeal [oh hell yes]
INTP (introvert, intuition, thinking, perceiving) [oh hell yes]
high-functioning autism
intelligent, gifted, hard workers when interested in a task, though they can be extreme procrastinators when not, and excellent problem solvers
they may appear somewhat removed or disconnected at times, especially in situations of sensory overload, or extreme perceived social pressure such as a party
look into these more:
Pervasive developmental disorder"

Interiot's own words and assessment of himself.

---------

With that condition (lack of attention span) You are trying to tell us about eula agreements is a laugh and a half. You don't have enough attention span to read one of them through fully.

I found that url and what it contained about you with your own words stating it because I have followed your postings and spotted this one about you where you started up a fight with this guy and got yourself into a jam via your own words.

You're the last person who ought to be talking about eula's, you can't hold your trains of thought long enough to read one, let alone comment on them.

Re:EULA text length & ADD dont mix well

[interiot]

Actually, it's the freaks list that are the people who dislike me (my foes list is people who I don't like) and there are only 5 on that list.

As I said before, you're free to taunt people about ADD, but since it's nothing to be ashamed of, taunting people for it is like... I don't know... swordfighting with the breeze.

Anyway, if you see APK sometime, ask him if he can come out and play.

Re:EULA text length & ADD dont mix well

[Anonymous Coward]

"you're free to taunt people about ADD, but since it's nothing to be ashamed of"

You said that interiot, but why then did you remove the page about it where you said this on your website:

http://www.paperlined.org/bio/fucked_up.html

---------

"sort of like autism (antisocial, high IQ, some sensory sensitivities), though not nearly as severe as autism
doesn't like to look eye-to-eye with others
doesn't like to touch others
preoccupation with things
need a certain level of stimulation to function properly (though not nearly as bad as autism)
not any relatives to autism, except for sensory integration dysfunction or autistic spectrum
Visuospatial thinking preferred
These autistic traits may be beneficial for some disciplines like science, mathematics, engineering
though not these:
Poor use and understanding of nonverbal communication (i.e., facial expressions and body language) [as far as I can tell... I'm not very bad at these]
Poor understanding of abstract thought, metaphors, and symbolism
Peculiar clothing and food preferences
aspbergers
mild level of pedantic language... more anal than others, and like humor more than others, but not outside of normal
orderly things have appeal [oh hell yes]
INTP (introvert, intuition, thinking, perceiving) [oh hell yes]
high-functioning autism
intelligent, gifted, hard workers when interested in a task, though they can be extreme procrastinators when not, and excellent problem solvers
they may appear somewhat removed or disconnected at times, especially in situations of sensory overload, or extreme perceived social pressure such as a party
look into these more:
Pervasive developmental disorder"

---------

Those are your own words after all, describing your mental problem. Why then did you remove it from your website if you are not ashamed of it then?

VoIP blocking

[HDhandyshaun]

I understand the utilities' position on the VoIP issue, however I don't agree with them. I do think, at some point, once VoIP becomes the mainstream way to communicate, then the utilities may have to take a piece of that action simply because they will ultimately still own the lines on which all this information is transmitted, but they don't deserve it right now, and even when they do get a piece, it should be a small, small piece. Afterall, the entire idea of the internet; whether you're transmitting voice, video, or just plain old data; is simply an inexpensive fast way for humans to communicate and share information with one another and that's what it is all about.

This is an argument for controlling gov, not corps

[Anonymous Coward]

If the gov doesn't have the power, the corps can't buy it.

There has never been a way of preventing money from buying politicians, not corp managers from spending the $ to do so. I don't expect human nature to change soon.

The US Constitution (now completely abandoned) maximized individual freedom by limiting gov power. It did so precisely to prevent the gov from abuses such as granting monopolies.

Lew

Encypted VoIP encouraged by greedy Telecompanies

[Falcon040]

Well, thats for sure. The Security Services are just gonna love what these companies are doing [sarcasm].
With everyone moving to VoIP as VoIP applications are now so abundant and easy to use, this will only spur the adoption of encryption enabled VoIP applications, also that may run from a distributed directory (AKA Gnutella-like or bittorrent-like), or call direct Point 2 Point using IP addresses etc.
Most people are quite happy with the way VoIP is now, it is only the greed of these companies blocking open VoIP packets that will drive these encrypted and identity-scrambled VoIP Apps.
Then how are terrorist chat ever going to be discoved amongst all that encrypted chat?

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You just can't stop free porn."

We can't stop death either, but we keep using antibiotics, surgery and seatbelts.