Vonage's CEO Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' 386
Avantare writes "CEO of leading VoIP provider says port blocking of VoIP traffic is one potential small step toward an unwanted future of IP-based censorship.
According to Vonage Holdings Corp. CEO Jeffrey Citron, intentional blocking of Voice over IP traffic is more than just a competitive dirty trick -- it's an act of censorship against free speech.
In an exclusive interview here Tuesday [March 1], Vonage's chief executive said the issue of the company's recent incident of having some VoIP traffic blocked reaches beyond the market for IP-based voice communications and into the realm of free speech -- and as such, should be protected by the courts, the FCC, or by new telecom regulation that ensures free and open access over the Internet."
There *could* be a way around this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:4, Informative)
Right not in DNS, but rather the host service.
Maybe we should just IPSec wrap all communications.
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:5, Informative)
Soko
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3)
Don't all coporations need a charter from some government (state gov't ?)
wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The Rise of Corporations [globalissues.org]
So... it seems corporate charters of the past were limited in time and contained a "public good" clause but have neither feature today.
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is becoming a critical enabler of free speech, and if those who carry Internet traffic are going to start unduly mucking about with the packets I send, then it's time to make them stop.
You would have a point, if VOIP actually consumed mammoth amounts of bandwidth, or otherwise disrupted service for everyone. But it doesn't. Certainly there are much more pressing bandwidth hogs to go after. Anyways, all the quality of service issues that might be relevant to this could be handled by using simple traffic shaping against heavy users, without regard to what functions the traffic was serving.
Essentially, you're saying that if the Internet can do something, but your ISP would make more money if you were doing it a different way, it has the right to keep you from doing it over the Internet.
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me think. Hmmm... Yes! Gee that question was easy!
I realize it's fashionable nowadays to pretend if it weren't for the benevolence of an omnipotent government we would all be miserable choice-less slaves of corporatism, but it's simply is not true. You do have a choice. If you don't like your ISP, get an
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever customers they can retain after they have to truthfully disclose what they're offering, they're welcome to. I don't think they'll be en
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:2)
Besides, as a solution for getting around the port-blocking issue, your idea wouldn't work. All an ISP has to do is make the same query (or snoop the query) made by the customer, and if the response indicates a VoIP service on a particular port, they block traffic to it.
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:2)
Just wondering how that would stack up....
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There *could* be a way around this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the big guys will block VOIP. They don't need to. If they prioritize their in-house VOIP traffic and then just treat the BYOV (Bring Your Own Voip) traffic as normal web - or perhaps even a lower level, the call experience will not be as good on the BYOV as the in-house. B
No problem for ISPs (Score:2)
the Isps own the modem software that is loaded (assuming dsl or cable). It become trivial to block differing ports on a per site basis.
The only real answer is to take this to court and/or get laws passed prohibiting the FCC and the large ISPs from doing this
Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls (Score:4, Informative)
Free Speech? (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL, but I don't think HIAL either.
Internet Provider != Government (Score:3, Insightful)
The exception to my statement is situations where there is monopoly power in a given market. If your only option for high speed internet is one co
Re:Internet Provider != Government (Score:3, Interesting)
This means that they get things like protection for bad stuff people do on their network in exchange for not being allowed to ask what people will do on their network...
If they want to give up that protection (and have the ??IA sue *them* instead of end-users, they are welcome to do so -- then they would be legally allowed to restrict that sort of thing in [almost] any anti-competitive way they like.
I don't know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't know... (Score:3, Interesting)
leave it to the market (Score:5, Insightful)
the day my ISP blocks a voice over IP port is the day that I switch to another ISP
Re:leave it to the market (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:leave it to the market (Score:4, Insightful)
ISPs should not be allowed to filter service like this. My DSL provider IS a phone company, about the time VOIP starts eating into their service they can just turn it off and screw me. That's not right, and is a valid reason for federal regulation of ISPs much like phone companies have been regulated for decades.
Re:leave it to the market (Score:2)
The packets head over to Lake Michigan, where they are loaded, one by one, onto a boat to cross the lake. When they get there, they are then sent the rest of the way by carrier pigeon. Unfortunatley, sometimes a hunter in Wisconsin shoots my pigeon down,
Re:leave it to the market (Score:5, Insightful)
1) a significant number of people are not only aware of the issue but actually care about it.
2) a significan subset of 1) have a viable option to switch *to*
Re:leave it to the market (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:leave it to the market (Score:2)
Some ISPs have a captive audience - NTL in the UK for example, as it is the only broadband provider its subscribers can get unless they switch phone lines as well ( NTL is a Cable company that also distributes TV and telephone services over its network)
If port blocking is censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If port blocking is censorship (Score:2)
Censorship... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm done, carry forward with the conversation.
Re:Censorship... (Score:2)
Re:Censorship... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Censorship... (Score:2)
They don't give a shit about the content of the conversations. It is not censorship. It's not right either, but it's definitely not censorship.
Re:Censorship... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Censorship... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have begun to think that the distinction between corporations and governments isn't so cut & dried as some people seem to think it is. I think any organization becomes government-like as it grows larger.
Re:Censorship... (Score:2)
Re:Censorship... (Score:2, Insightful)
Governments are not the only entities capable of censorship. Anybody who has control over any communication medium can exercise censorship.
Re:Censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only governments censor. This would be anti-competitive. Semantics, yes, but an important distiction nonetheless.
You are incorrect. First anyone can censor, not just governments. Second, these corporations are given special legal protections by acting on behalf of the government as "common carriers" of communication, and as such are required to maintain impartiality in order to retain that status. An ISP is immune from prosecution for carrying child porn, only so long as it impartially transmits data, regardless of what it is, and does not attempt to police the content of its network. Whichever ISP this is just opened themselves up to prosecution for child porn, copyright infringement, libel, false advertising, etc., etc.
Re:Censorship... (Score:2)
Stop whining Vonage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stop whining Vonage (Score:3, Interesting)
I may have missed the sarcasm of that post, but...
That is a battle that Vonage cannot win, the ISP is the ultimate "man in the middle" of security literature. Suppose Vonage switched to SRV records - ISP looks for SRV requests for SIP services and redirects or fails them, or they could block RTP streams themselves (even encrypted ones) with characteristics other than those of the ISP, since the ISP is guaranteed to be privy to all communications they
Free Speech as in 1st Amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless that ISP is named "Congress" or someone to whom Congress has delegated a monopoly position, I don't see the connection to Free Speech.
Re:Free Speech as in 1st Amendment? (Score:2)
Unless that ISP is named "Congress" or someone to whom Congress has delegated a monopoly position, I don't see the connection to Free Speech.
Free speech has limitations in the form of a number of laws. Certain organizations are granted exceptions to laws restricting free speech by being granted "common carrier" status. These companies do not have to worry about prosecution for transmitting or publishing child porn, copyrighted works, or libelous materials. In order to maintain their status as common car
Re:Free Speech as in 1st Amendment? (Score:2)
Congress isn't happy (Score:5, Interesting)
The bottom line is that the telecoms have a strangle hold and they are not willing to let go but they have over stepped their boundries this time. Expect to see hearings announced soon.
Re:Congress isn't happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congress isn't happy (Score:2)
On the one hand I am glad you're getting the ball rolling.
On the other I'm saddened to think how many laws get drafted this way...
Re:Congress isn't happy (Score:2)
Re:Congress isn't happy (Score:3, Insightful)
A, what? VoIP uses veddy veddy little bandwidth; it's quite doable over dialup, let alone broadband. The main concern is latency and jitter, not bandwidth.
A T1 should be able to support, well, at bare minimum, the 24 voice channels it really is. And VoIP takes less bandwidth than the 64 Kb/s those channels are using.
Re:Congress isn't happy (Score:2, Informative)
voip is not a bandwidth hog by any means, in the space of ONE user listening to a 128kbps streaming mp3 station you can cram 15 calls.
Re:Congress isn't happy (Score:2)
It is disconcerting to hear "straight from the horse's mouth" that a lobbyist is writing a bill that will be introduced by a senator. One more example of how far the U.S. has gotten from a government that represents the people.
Even though most people on /. will be glad to hear that something will be done to support VOIP, we can be reasonably sure that any bill you draft will
I have a question for you, if you are willing. (Score:3, Insightful)
(with comcast pro, this can be waved)
Do you not consider the hardware reciving input when a voip customer recieves a call on the end users machine to not be within the definition of a server? or do you think that this portion of an AUP is illegal, and therefore should be ignored? ala civil disobedience- or a third possibility I haven't considered.
I'd like to know- comcast reser
Vonage's CEO Says VoIP Blocking Is 'Censorship' (Score:2)
Not "censorship"... (Score:5, Insightful)
At what level? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it restricting free speech if a company blocks VoIP outside of their network?
Is it restricting if one ISP decides to block it for all of their customers?
In the first situation, it's not really any different than a company policy forbidding personal phone calls on company time.
In the second situation, switch ISPs to someone mroe reasonable.
I think before we can go around saying that blocking VoIP is denying free speech, we should look at each situation individually.
And of course, when possible, vote with dollars.
Re:At what level? (Score:2)
Here's the way I see it -- if I buy bandwidth from you and you want to act as a common-carrier, what I do with the bandwidth is none of your business.
If I have a VPN connection and you can't see what's going on because it's encrypted you won't have the opportunity to block VoIP. So does the fact that I've kept it private change the legal status of it?
Now, some clever wing-nut w
Re:At what level? (Score:2)
Companies have the right to forbide personal phone calls of THEIR EMPLOYEES. I do not work for my ISP, they would NOT have the right to do this. A better analogy would be a University allowing charging students for phone service but forbidding them from calling other universities.
Service Outage (Score:2)
Re:Service Outage (Score:2, Funny)
First for a CEO (Score:5, Funny)
This has to be the first time a CEO has used the word 'schwing!' in an official interview.
The FCC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, so do is VOIP regulation a good thing, or is it a bad thing? [slashdot.org]
I'm confused.
Re:The FCC? (Score:2)
This is funny.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is funny.. (Score:2)
Common Carrier? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't such selective conetnt filtering make them lose that status? Sounds like bad mojo for them.
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
ISPs shouldn't be required to support VOIP, any more than they're required to support email, FTP, or any other service. An ISP should be free to choose the services that it wishes to support, and a customer can then choose an ISP that offers the services that he desires. If VOIP is a good thing, then customers will punish ISPs that don't support it. If it's bad, then VOIP will die (as is natural in a competitive marketplace). The VOIP cry of censorship is just an attempt to get legislative backing for a business model.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
The ISP did NOT tell their CUSTOMERS they were blocking VOIP.
You can't offer a general service, then go out of your way to not offer a specific service that is customarillly offered with it unless you TELL YOUR CUSTOMER that you are not offering the specific service.
The ISP committed fraud against their customers - they claimed to offer full ISP service but in truth were only offering a limited ISP service.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
This isn't "I don't like Foo's prices, I'll go up the street."
freedom talk (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't use those ISPs then... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's a commercial entity telling you how you can use their network. Don't like it? Give your money to someone who will allow it.
Port blocking of VoIP traffic, he opined, is a step down a slippery slope that could lead to network owners blocking content or Web sites they disagreed with.
As much as I disagree with ISPs blocking any sort of traffic they do have every right to do so as you are using their network and unfortunately for most people you are *usually* under no contract of service w/the ISP that says they cannot stop you from doing whatever it is you want.
Content providers already effectively block content they don't want you to see. There have been reports of ISPs blocking traffic on ports 6881 to 6889 and trackers requiring you to use different ports (see http://tmnsp.net as they require you to use alternate ports because of this). Comcast (the largest consumer broadband ISP) doesn't offer Usenet access except through a third party. Other ISPs don't offer ALL Usenet groups - they are keeping you from some content!
"The FCC could come out and institute the largest possible fine they could, with the sternest of statements saying, 'this will not be tolerated,' " Citron said. "That might send a strong enough message."
Or the large conglomerate providers, who already have the FCC in their pockets, could just pay the FCC off and tell them to ignore the problem. I don't see this solving anything.
Personally, I think Vonage should make their software impossible to trace. Yeah it could make the quality/speed take a hit but it would protect them. They can't ban ALL traffic or no one would use the service. Pipe the shit over 443 and be done w/it.
"It'd be unfortunate to have to pass a law [against port blocking and other types of interference], but we may have to," Citron said. Though he said he has previously testified against the need for port-blocking regulation, Citron may now change that tune, especially if more network operators start using port-blocking or other techniques to selectively control Internet traffic.
The implications are too far reaching. I wouldn't be able to block spammers and hackers from hitting my machine because Vonage can't sell their VoIP service?
"What are people using broadband to do? Communicate," Citron said. "They [network operators who block VoIP] are restricting your ability to communicate with another person. And that's censorship."
People are using broadband to download porn, POP email from their ISP, and CNN.com from the web. As long as they can do that people will be happy. Find and partner with ISPs that will allow your traffic and point possible (and current) users in that direction but certainly don't believe it will stop an ISP like Comcast from blocking your ports. They have millions of subscribers who are clueless (just like Comcast wants them). If you think that anything less than a good percentage of Comcast would make them change their ways, you've got another thing coming.
Welcome to the future of conglomerate communication control!
Re:Don't use those ISPs then... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't use those ISPs then... (Score:2)
1) ISP's all advertise them self as full internet access.
2) The ISP did NOT inform the customer they were blocking VoIP.
The problem is actually FRAUD committed byt he ISP, they promissed a service and did not fulfill their promise. But I do agree this is not a "censorship" issue
different than other ports? (Score:2)
Hmmm... maybe I'll wait (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, just realized vonage doesn't support calling 911 in canada yet! WTF is up with that? I have kids and it is important to have them be able to pick up the phone and just dial 911 (as they have been taught at school, the media, etc...). Yet another factor to consider before I make the switch.
Slashdot discussion summary (Score:3, Funny)
1) Vocabulary pedants reminding you that only governments can censor and that ____ isn't government censorship.
2) Replies to vocabulary pedants claiming that any sufficiently powerful and/or monopolistic entity hindering communications isn't functionally different than government censorship.
3) People suggesting that Linux be deployed as a remedy.
Re:Slashdot discussion summary (Score:2)
4) self-aggrandizing karma whores submit meta-commentary on the discussion itself, providing little of substance to the debate at hand.
Wait, would that make my post:
5)
Why do I feel like the Tortoise/Achilles all of the sudden
I, Cringely (Score:2, Informative)
Bubble Packets, IPv6 (Score:2, Interesting)
Second of all, how is this different from disallowing any incoming or outgoing connections?
Some ISPs don't allow any incoming connections, some don't allow port 25 outgoing.
Blocking port 25 outgoing would be easy to fix, only block it for microsoft mailer agents. (try this on your spam filter).
Why don't ISPs upgrade to IPv6 so users have the most useful technology available to them?
ISPs don't upgrade to IPv6 because they maximize pr
The Future? (Score:2)
With my current Internet connection, I can go anywhere. I can connect to Slashdot on port 80. I can ssh into my server. I can view Microsoft's webpage. I can view Red Hat's page. In short, I can pretty much connect to anything on the Internet I want.
What's to stop ISPs from restricting this? I don't think it's going to happen, but I'm not so confident that it will never happen. I believe some markets, such as web access on cell phones, already do
Not Content Based (Score:2, Insightful)
It may be anti-competitive behavior, it may put their common-carrier status at risk and it sounds like improper behavior, but it is not censorship.
A way to fix port blocking? (Score:2)
Lets see the ISP's block ports 1 through 1024!
Forget all the fancy DNS routing crap I've seen in here. This sounds (at least on the surface) much more simple..
Of course, right here I could be showing how little I know about TCP
The Entire "Usefulness" of the Net is at stake (Score:2)
If industry groups are allowed to determine what constitutes acceptable use of Internet traffic, its not just IP blocking for phone users that's at stake. Hell, I'm sure the RIAA would love to just do away with music on the net altogether. (Not to mention the MPAA). Bible thumpers would love to put an end to porn. And old ink&paper publishers would love to get rid of the whole kit & kaboodle.
The point is that preventing certain communications because of corporate agendas or industry expedience
Which IP are we talking about here? (Score:2)
SPILL the BEANS. WHO? (Score:2)
This appears to be already done....??? (Score:3, Informative)
Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls [zdnet.com]
UPDATE: Firm pays $15,000 to settle issue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My ISP Port Blocks Me and I Hate It (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not Censorship? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Umm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet service can be viewed just as phone service is -- as a common carrier device. If a phone company were to block certain incoming or outgoing calls without your prior autorization simply because they can and don't want you to, for example, contact a competing company to set up service with them, they'd find themselves in a HUGE pile of doo-doo.
In this case, and I may be reading this wrong, but they are blocking a type of internet traffic for no reason other than to be anti-competitive. This harms the consumer. And before you start saying "well then they should just move to a different ISP!" there are times then they are the only broadband game in town and as such could be found to be abusing monopoly power... that's yet another big pile of doo-doo they don't want to find themselves in or else they'll end up like Microsoft and... oh wait, nevermind that is a bad example isn't it.
But seriously, if they begin blocking types of service that customers have access to, then it's time to examine the terms of service at the very least... but I think someone from the DoJ should be peeking into this affair.
Re:Umm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but the more restrictive the ISP is, the less they look like a common carrier. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- and common carrier status confers all kinds of protections (legal and otherwise) that the ISP runs the risk of losing if it starts censoring specific kinds of traffic.
Re:Umm.... (Score:2)
That's interesting...
What exactly, if you don't mind explaining, are the benefits and legal parameters of "common carrier" status?
Re:Umm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If my child stumbles across some pornographic site on the web, it would be unlikely that I'd be able to squeeze any cash out of the ISP for presenting the material to her. They will argue "We're a common carrier, we don't limit or scrutinize the information you access through us so we have no way of protecting you or your child from any information you may be presented with" or some such.
If they were to s