[asterisk-biz] Is ISP Blocking VoIP

[C F]

On 2/3/06, Cirelle Enterprises <gcirino at cirelle.com> 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."
>

Communities such as torrents have always been good at coming up with
good technologies, I'm not worried that they wont be able to come up
with something to bypass the above mentioned ones, and yes I think in
a cat and mouse contest the consumer will win.

> 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!" ...


It's ironic how this Ed Whitacre didn't notice how *his* traffic from
AT&T is routed onto the Internet for free as well, and that it is *us*
the consumers that enabled that investment to work, if not for the
good things like Yahoo Google and/or Vonage Western Union would have
still delivered Yellow envelopes today, and AT&T would have had to buy
a spot on the Superbowl to sell their funny service called Internet.
It just shows that he failed his networking class tests, and was
*never* a field engineer.

>
> 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
>
> --
> Best Regards
>
> Greg Cirino
>
> CirelleM at iL Virus & Spam Free
> and you can't do better than that!
> http://www.cirellemail.com
>
> Cirelle Enterprises Inc.
> 25 Indian Rock Rd #421
> Windham NH, 03087
> 603-425-2221
>
> _______________________________________________
> --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
>