<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
perfect example...<br>
<br>
Paul wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid43E36047.3090401@9ux.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cirelle Enterprises wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mark Phillips wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.g7ltt.com">http://www.g7ltt.com</a>
Rusty Shackleford wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com">asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com">mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces@lists.digium.com</a>] 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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/JCnetneutrality.html">http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/JCnetneutrality.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:netconcepts_anguilla@yahoo.com">netconcepts_anguilla@yahoo.com</a> </pre>
</body>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</html>