[asterisk-biz] Is ISP Blocking VoIP

Fri Feb 3 07:02:03 MST 2006

perfect example...

Paul wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>
>
>   

-- 
Chris Mason
NetConcepts
(264) 497-5670 Fax: (264) 497-8463
Int:  (305) 704-7249 Fax: (815)301-9759 UK 44.207.183.0271
Cell: 264-235-5670
Yahoo IM: netconcepts_anguilla at yahoo.com 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20060203/feb6412e/attachment.htm