What is Digg?153 Comments
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+81"Only criminals and terrorists use encryption." - Your federal government
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41This super-sucks and must not become a precedent as you, the consumer, have ALREADY PAID for your internet pipeline that VoIP is using, and companies shouldn't be allowed to cripple services offered by their competitors. Then they'd be allowed to also block competitor's websites or services.
Here in Ontario (Canada), Shaw Cable is throttling Vonage calls unless you pay $5 more a month. Unsurprisingly, Shaw is also offering a new VoIP service, which also costs more than Vonage.
With internet video on demand and IPTV coming fast and furious, this behaviour needs to be stopped now because dangerous precedents are being set and legislated. - Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Sounds like with the net neutrality law defeated, the next step is blackmailing VOIP providers into paying for the bandwidth. God damn Telecos need a swift kick in the ass.
- jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Could they block your calls if you used an encryption like this one?:
Wired News: A Pretty Good Way to Foil the NSA
www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70524-0.html?tw=rss.index - 29k - - tavisjohn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Try running the vonage test DURING a phone call... Just call your cell, and do not talk on it, little data will be transfered via your Vonage hardware, and should have little effect to the test. If the result change is HUGE then you know it is being blocked.
To all you loosers saying "This is fake" check around. More and more high speed ISP's offer a "VOIP Quality package" Where you pay between $10 and $25 per month to "Guarantee" that your VOIP calls will be good. I call this "Quality Package" Extortion!!! Your ISP is there to provide your Internet access, no matter WHAT you are using it for! NOW they want to charge you a FEE for using another companies VOIP system!!! This is an illegal tax! It would be the same as your cell company charging you to have a good quality call to a phone outside their system! And if you did not pay the QOS fee, your calls outside their system would be distorted and even disconnected! - dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19FTA: "Telcos in the US and other countries are reluctant to have their bandwidth encroached on by traffic from which they earn no revenue"
I like that statement. no revenue. of course, that is if you don't count the MONEY PEOPLE PAY THEM TO ACCESS THE INTERNET. - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21It should also be noted that VoIP bandwidth on a network is minute and insignificant compared to the general level of traffic and doesn't make a dent on the infrastructure, especially compared to spam distribution and peer-to-peer sharing. This is a move ONLY to hobble competition and nothing else.
If a broadband company wants to offer their own VoIP service, well then they better step it up and offer enough incentive and quality over their competitors and the customers will come. - _skin_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19It is a sad day. I can not even begin to explain how this hurts my image of the future.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Looks like AT&T's wounds have healed by now. Let's remind them why they were broken up in the first place.
- jthunder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The most important part of this story isn't that security is an issue to the VOIP user and related network, but that ISP's who have competing products or services are trying their best to force the independent VOIP providers out of the game.
This is being done in Canada right now by Shaw Communications on their customers who use the Vonage VOIP service. Most believe that it is being purposefully degraded.
Link - http://www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic12172.html
There must be some control of ISPs to limit what kinds of effects they can impose on their paying customers.
To test if your ISP is doing this click here and determine if your upload packet discards suffer from shaping - http://www.testyourvoip.com
For the encryption to work, it must obfuscate the packet headers much like the bittorrent encyption supported by utorrent and azereus. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Wtf is wrong with our lawmakers?"
They are owned. - GreenSlabOfClay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!
All the major telcos, (most of which were built on your tax dollars), are monopolising the market.
Welcome to the 21st century, where we ***** our consumers senseless. - jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If they're clever enough an ISP can certainly block any VOIP. Even encrypted VOIP. ISPs can use packet shapers to catch all the unencrypted stuff. But if you use encryption there are still certain packets (the ones that tell the rest of the packets where to go) that are unencrypted. They have to be easily read, otherwise the intermediary servers/routers/switches/hubs wouldn't know where to send the traffic.
Certain things about VOIP headers make it fairly easy to determine the contents of the packets. With encryption no one knows what you are saying, but they know that you are talking and to whom you are speaking. With an onion router (TOR) they won't know where the packets are going, but they'll still know you are sending VOIP traffic. - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Oh, yes, they are most definitely, self-admittedly throttling competitor VoIP. Shaw is intentionally causing the calls to sound ***** by degrading the connection unless you pay to have them sound better. That's like them degrading your cable signal so it's full of static and saying, "well, you can still watch TV; you just have to pay to have the picture clearer."
In their "Quality of Service" agreement, they say that all networks experience bandwidth issues, but this has nothing to do with the VoIP bandwidth needed, and Shaw HAS admitted that they are intentionally doing this when they hadn't previously.
And by the way, when I said it was $5 extra per month, it's actually $10 extra. And yes, the calls ARE over the internet, even though they say they are on a "separately managed network". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Create an SSL through VPN tunnel and call through that. ISP will see it as normal web traffic instead of whatever kinda traffic Vonage uses. I know, it's a PITA to set up, but it will most likely solve your problem.
And be sure to give your ISP's admins the middle finger afterwards. :p - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Hate to agree with this but I have to. The Internet was started originally for research purposes. That was ruined by the corporations. Email was great, but SPAM ruined it. The web is ruined by ads, popups and malware. Internet stores are ruined by phishers and other scammers. Internet news was ruined by blogs. Digital file trading is ruined by the RIAA/MPAA, criminalizing grandmothers and little girls while they line their suit pockets with gold.
VOIP is going to be killed in its infancy due to corporate greed from the telecos. Unfortunately, corporate greed will NEVER slow down; it will only rise. - timmins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've been working with a lead engineer at Vonage, where he would keep me routed to NY and I would make local calls. Inbound, nothing. Outbound, complete garbage... and most of it was local.
We traced it down to Comcast messing around with the connection and so far the only band-aid is that they re-routed me to LA. - ReinMasamuri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If I'm not wrong, this is illegal for two reasons:
1) We've paid for our bandwidth. What we do with it is none of their business.
2) For the same reason startup phone companies can use Telcom's existing wires, they cannot shut down VoIP services. It's a shared line law, they can't do it. - syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The net neutrality law wasn't defeated. You were lied to.
In reality, the Republicans voted to expand the powers of the FCC to deal with this, and see if that solves the problem. If you believe your VOIP is being blocked, report it to the FCC. They will investigate and possibly fine your ISP. - halikar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Sorry to burst your bubble vlekk, but I live in the area of Monrovia, California, and this is a known issue with the cable company, Adelphia. Note also, Monrovia is not a hick berg, but part of the Los Angeles metroplex, so this is by no means an isolated thing.
The problem isn't that there are too few facts, there are more than enough. The problem is you want them all in a story that has to be a sumnation, something all news stories are. Some reporters do indeed to slipshod research, but just because some do (and garner a ton of publicity when they do), doesn't mean it's wise to treat all news as suspect. That way lies conspiracy theories. - anonatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well guys, the internet had a good run. We actually had control of it for a while, but then email was ruined by spam, chat rooms... spam, IM... spam, everything else, Ma Bell.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As long as money talks, the U.S. congress is going to vote in favour of capitalism. History will repeat itself. It's the reason why the CAN-SPAM act is toothless. Like direct bulk mailers, the spammers whined that they wouldn't be able to make a living if they had to change their evil business model, even if it annoys consumers to no end. It's also why your bank and telco is allowed to sell your personal details to other "trusted" organizations. Money is paramount, and somehow a North American business culture has developed where if you aren't allowed to squeeze as much as humanly possible from your consumers, you are being wronged.
- vlekk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Bubble has burst.
I've done some reading and I have changed my mind.
I still think the article lacks substance all around, but that is beside the point I am making.
I don't think these ISPs should be blocking ports, let alone VoIP. I mean come on, do they actually believe that by doing so it is going to create revenue for themselves? The answer to that would be a _resounding_ NO. It is going to create more problems which will in turn push customers away, along with their money.
Anyhow I jumped the gun on this one. - AdamFitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How is this legal? I mean, granted in the US these days if you have money you can get away with anything (and I'm not well-versed in laws in other countries), but how is deteriorating something we've paid for because we won't buy overpriced service through Comcast or others even an issue? Wtf is wrong with our lawmakers?
- bloodborne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It seems extraordinarily unethical to me that an ISP can block whatever traffic from paying consumers they please, because they are not seeing profit from it. Many times, consumers only have one choice for an ISP (I know that's the case in a lot of places where I live), so they cannot seek alternatives. This would be like Postal Service refusing to deliver catalogs because they don't get a cut of its sales . . . despite the fact you are paying for stamps and the taxes that keep the Postal Service funded. What this does is set a terrible precedent. A world were people cannot freely speak to each other is a worse world for it. What could they block next?
- jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6vlekk wrote:
"There is no proof here people. Some guy [unknown, fictional as far as I'm concerned] claims that while he is using his VoIP phone his Internet connection is severed."
It seems that vlekk wants annotated bibliography for news stories...Fine, but for those people who trust that a large paper will be discredited if it makes up it's news stories and go out of business or wind up next to the National Enquirer, I can say the Guardian Is reputable. On another note about vlekk he didn't read the whole story or he would have said something about the Saudi part and why he thinks this is fictional too or maybe he just ignored this:
"In Saudi Arabia, for instance, national carrier Saudi Telecom is using software from US supplier Narus to block all VoIP calls." - Mach5, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15" "Only criminals and terrorists use encryption." - Your federal government "
Easy solution, give everyone encryption! - josh_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If you don't pay the $5 your VoIP traffic will be treated the same as any other web traffic. So, your VoIP should work fine. But, say you are saturating your upload bandwidth with bittorrent or your particular internet connection isn't the best for some reason, the $5 will give your VoIP traffic a higher priority. You'll get lower latency throughout the Shaw Network. This $5 charge isn't mandatory and probably isn't needed in most circumstances.
- jthunder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here is a link to Shaw's $10 QoS product for VOIP -
http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/ServiceEnhancement.htm
This seems completely backward to me... - mspencer712, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Calling your Internet provider and saying "you are blocking my Vonage calls" SHOULD have worked, but these poor customer service reps have been told to lie about the difference between "not supported" and "blocked."
Instead, these people should call their Internet providers and say "I'm using an Internet application that communicates with this IP address over this UDP port. I notice whenever I start using this application, my Internet connection starts to fail. Could you look into it?"
Or in response to "we don't support third party VoIP": "this is not VoIP, it's UDP traffic over the public Internet. When I send you a UDP packet with a destination address, your service agreement with me says you will make a best effort to route that UDP packet to its destination. You have stopped doing that, and that's a problem with your service. Fix it."
Eventually the poor Customer Service Rep will have to pass you along to someone higher up. - j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Don't forget Apple.
- DarkZen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This has got to be one of the most lame thing i have ever heard the telecoms doing these days.... Like many people before me stated..
WE PAY FOR THE BAND....I don't see why they should be allowed to do this kind of crap..i don't have VOIP but ill be calling my ISP tonight and giving them an ear full and possibly switch to a competitor... I don't see why i should support such efforts to crush new technology's...just because they aren't going to make money off it...(which isn't true because we already pay them for the band..)
-DZ - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Amen. AT&T sending data to NSA, ISPs colluding for subvert net neutrality, this, and I imaging more similar stories like it soon.
This also doesn't sound the least bit legal as everyone else has pointed out. I must search for the precedent; I thought something like this was happening in California and the telco was ordered they cannot block. Cable companies might have a different legal standing though. - flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As far as I was aware, ISPs are *CARRIERS* of information, and they are not supposed to interact with your dataflow. What is stopping isps from charging you for AIM or other service? (quality assurance of course, otherwise they disconnect you ever 5 min) By taking this route, they could effectivly charge you for any internet application. IRC, Email, FTP, etc
- realnebby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You would have to terminate the tunnel yourself someone where the network shaping isn't being done. For instance you could tunnel into the LAN at a friends house and then go back out through his or her internet connection if they had a different ISP that didn't block VOIP.
- dasunst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5To me, telephony services in America are an absolute travesty. Asian countries are laughing at us, European countries are rolling on the floor laughing with the services they have there.
If competition spurs innovation, innovation drives the economy, and the economy determines the "superiority" of a country, then I think that it would follow that it would be America's interest to put a stop to this. Otherwise, I think it would be possible that other countries will surpass America as the most powerful nation. - selloutvixen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5All your bandwidth are belong to greedy bastards.
- ListerOfSmeg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who's libel when you try to call 911 on your VOIP line and you can't get through because the service is either degraded to point of not functioning or is completely blocked?
- blahbbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It would seem to me that if ISP's start doing this, they would lose their Common Carrier status, and thus be somewhat responsible for the content of their networks.
- The_Dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why don't we all just band together, chip in X amount of money, and get our own lobbyists? I mean you gotta fight fire with fire right? So how much money do we need? How many potential contributors can we roust up? Let's say we could round up 100,000 people via the intarwebs. Everyone kicks in 10 bucks and viola, we've already got a million to pump into lobbying. Granted, that's chump change, but still. What if we had 1 million internet firends all kicking in 10 bucks? Now we're talking. Grease the skids. Jam up the teleco's progress with all kinds of stuff.
- Burgerman851, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"To all you loosers saying 'This is fake' check around."
<Sarcasm>Surely, the ISPs couldn't have any motive for doing this.</Sarcasm> - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is only one step down a dangerous path. It's VoIP today, but tomorrow it's going to be blocked video chat, like with iChat AV or MSN Messenger. Mark my words.
Here in Canada, the wireless telcos are already allowed to charge an additional $7 "system access fee" that's not listed in the calling plans, but is nothing but a meaningless surcharge. Also, long distance calls don't cost the wireless telcos any more than regular calls (as it does for landline systems), but since we are used to thinking we should pay for long-distance, we accept it. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Eventually the poor Customer Service Rep will have to pass you along to someone higher up."
Yeah but then what happens? Nothing, right? - linuxwebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5not 'libel', liable!!
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Unfortunately, weak government market regulation has allowed a culture of this:
UNLIMITED INTERNET! $40 PER MONTH!*
* additional charges may apply
...and that has to stop.
Unfortunately, most of Congress in the U.S. are a bunch of old foges who don't read the laws they vote on, who have someone else check their email, and who can't even program their own VCR clock. The remainder tend to be often invested with the telcos, whether as Board members or stockholders or via lobbyists. In other words, your government are exactly the people who shouldn't be making these laws. - m1k3d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I had vonage for 6 months. The Telecom Company "QWEST" Blocked calls with in the area code in which I lived. Forceing my business to go back to QWEST for services much to my dismay. Although I must say Vonage customer service was the worst even compared to Qwests'. The reason I say that is: I was hung up on 9 times even when I was trying to cancel the service. Vonage sucks but so does every telecom out there. Go Asterick(VOIP software).
- The_Dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well put! I had to do something similar when my gaming ping went to crap one night on my cable. Run my own tracerts, 1st level tells me a 300ms ping is acceptable. I beg to differ for 40 bucks a month. Passed up to 3rd level. What do you know? Problem fixed!
- recursive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There is still a difference in priority if you don't pay the $5. What's the difference?
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"How are either of these companies remotely connected to the issue at hand?"
These telecos are just recently practicing new, anti-competitive measures. Microsoft then EA have made anti-competitive practices popularized (getting away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist). They've paved the way for other companies to test out these waters. - dhaviere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6this is a good example of what will likely become a very serious problem in the future. under our current communactions structure, the telcos really have every right to control their networks, as it technically belongs to them. the got seriously hurt during the last recession, and their egos are probably still hurting from it. to boot, now web service provides are making it big while they still just scrap for more subscribers (and, amazingly, doing a pitiful job, since each provider has only minimal competition), and so now they're really getting anxious.
so what happens? they start getting smart and aggressive. they know that they can essentially be the gatekeepers, and they're going to start taking advantage of it in the worse way. hell, i would if i was running a telco. and they're in a good position to fight, because telco is very entrenched with government.
the only way this is really gonna stop is if big third party vendors (ie, google, yahoo) strike deals with telcos, or get their hands dirty in govt. the only other option is for consumers to lobby to free the national communication structure. imagine, how much sense would it make if our highway system was privately controlled? or our airspace? -
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is