Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VoIP Backlash From Phone Companies

Posted by Zonk on from the free-calls-can-cost dept.

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.'"

57 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. slashdotted out of the gate by cagle_.25 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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?

    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    1. Re:slashdotted out of the gate by Pentavirate · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      www.joshferguson.org
    2. Re:slashdotted out of the gate by chucks86 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Help a poor college student. Send a couple cents via paypal to chucks86@gmail.com
  2. Bell? by Thu25245 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  3. In a related story...... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Informative

    .... 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

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:In a related story...... by gmack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. This will spur encrypted VoIP... by markana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by jrockway · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

      --
      My other car is first.
    4. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    5. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by shakah · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by Loonacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Are you suggesting that VOIP isn't legitimate?

    7. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by whovian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    10. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    11. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  5. Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by Netscryer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

  6. Good bye ma bell by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. Its called a Term of Service by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  8. Fight Fire WIth Fire? by Bodysurf · · Score: 2, Funny

    # ping -f narus.com

  9. Common carrier status? by strider3700 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Common carrier status? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
  10. Similar article in the WSJ by Strudelkugel · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
  11. Re:fp by rovingeyes · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  12. Wiretaps? by slashmojo · · Score: 3, Funny
    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! ;)

  13. Re:What would the U.N. think of this? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  14. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...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.

  15. China's National Networks... by theCSapprentice · · Score: 3, Informative
    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...

  16. Tried in Norway and Failed by johnjaydk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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 ;-)

    --
    TCAP-Abort
    1. Re:Tried in Norway and Failed by bahwi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

  17. what if they break it... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. But then online games suffer and Microsoft... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. Re:What would the U.N. think of this? by ahillen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. They'd better not.... by dslauson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They'd better not.... by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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?

  21. steganography by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  22. Raising a good point - online games for talk by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Raising a good point - online games for talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "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.

  23. FCC VoIP 911 Requirements by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. VPNs by xrayspx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

    --
    I like music
    1. Re:VPNs by glomph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  25. Clarify by dslauson · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  26. Good question by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  27. don't block VoIP, just make it suck by werelnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  28. Looks like 1984 type company by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  29. Re:I don't think that would fly in the US by ahillen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:I have a dream. I mean a nightmare. by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  31. Taxes by tsotha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  32. Re:What would the U.N. think of this? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

  33. Re:Thank you by gregmac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Speak before you think
  34. Here, Telcos and Cablecos are offering VOIP by QuebecNerd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  35. MOD PARENT UP! by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  36. Re:I don't think that would fly in the US by ahillen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  37. France Telecom offers VOIP in Italy! by donstenk72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!