[asterisk-biz] Is ISP Blocking VoIP

[Paul]

Cirelle Enterprises wrote:

> Mark Phillips wrote:
>
>> The fella's at MIT spent an awful lot of time and money demonstrating
>> that the tin foil hat did nothing to protect one from mind
>> rays/microwaves/government propaganda/whatever.
>>
>> Particularly useless was the "Fez" type which when exposed to 1.2GHz
>> of RF actualy had a concentrating effect much like the pringles
>> "cantenna".
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark, G7LTT/KC2ENI
>> Randolph, NJ
>> http://www.g7ltt.com
>>
>>
>> Rusty Shackleford wrote:
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
>>>> [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Mark
>>>> Phillips
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:13 PM
>>>> To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
>>>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Is ISP Blocking VoIP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or is it?
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that the ITSP is SIP based why not move the port from 5060
>>>> to something else?
>>>>
>>>> Granted they might be looking at trhe flavour of the packets but
>>>> perhaps they are not.
>>>>
>>>> Of one has to supply the customer with an ATA why not make it an
>>>> IAX one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again....
>>>
>>> These schemes might be effective, temporarily, but playing cat and
>>> mouse
>>> with ports and the ISPs' attempts to dick with traffic is not a
>>> practical business model.
>>>
>>> Honestly, this behavior on the part of the ISP's doesn't surprise me in
>>> the least. Conside those cases where the ISP is also selling dialtone.
>>> VOIP traffic crossing their network, and NOT belonging to them, is
>>> competition. Given that the major communications companies have a
>>> history of aggressively protecting their revenues, and given that the
>>> current regulatory climate has been bought and paid for by those
>>> companies, it doesn't surprise me at all.
>>> <tin_foil_hat=on>
>>> This is but an early skirmish in the war for the Internet, folks.
>>> Video-on-demand may well be the next round. That "holy grail" of the
>>> media giants is just around the corner, and don't think for a minute
>>> that your cable company/ISP will stand idly by and watch you order your
>>> movies from "moviesnow.blockbuster.com" if they can get away with
>>> dicking with the feed and offering you "a more reliable" alternative.
>>> <tin_foil_hat=off>
>>>
>>> - Rusty
>>>
> in an article by Jeff Chester (1 feb 06) titled Hijacking the Internet
> - "How Big
> Cable and Phone Companies Plans for Broadband Threaten Democracy", a
> plan to stop the proliferation of affordable access and fair
> competition in the
> internet world is identified. Cisco already being a major player with
> technology
> to limit, meter or otherwise restrict the QOS we all enjoy.
> ...Cisco and others (such as Allot Communications) warn cable and phone
> companies about the need to "limit unprofitable peer-to-peer
> communications"
> or even ban them.  Among the applications mentioned for such treatment
> including
> BitTorrent, Gnuetella, and Kazaa.  One can tell a lot about the
> intended role of
> these packet-inspection products by their names:  "SmartFlow,"
> "NetEnforcer," "NetPure," "NetRedirector," and "IP Control System."
>
> Ironically, some companies offering deep packet inspection technology
> claim
> that today's more unfettered use of the Internet is creating "a
> tragedy of the
> commons." That the public use of the Internet and "greedy" use of P2P
> could
> lead to its "overuse and eventual depletion or destruction," claims a
> paper from
> the Sandvine Corporation ...
>
>
> Additionally, there is an attitude of at least one major telco
> executive which
> appears to show the direction these folks are heading:
>
> ... As Ed Whitacre, CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why
> should
> they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that
> sense, because
> we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or
> Yahoo!
> or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
> ...
>
> So however it appears, if you want to compete with these guys, you
> will be at a
> disadvantage, since they seem to feel, paying for access will be based
> on the type
> of useage you plan, and not just the access.
>
> There may be a silver lining in all of this, but at this point, I
> certainly don't see it.
>
> the article can be found here:
>
> http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/JCnetneutrality.html
>
The silver lining could be there for innovative smaller providers. They
can sell vpn-tunneled service to those who are on ISP's that play games.
You don't need to use strong encryption. No ISP wants to be decrypting
customer traffic even if it is easily done. Blocking VPN would also be a
foolish thing to do. They don't want the lowest priced plans to start
resembling things like webtv.