denis-The-menace writes "An article from the online edition of IEEE Spectrum says phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced they will block VoIP calls on their networks. Using new software from Narus Inc., the carriers can detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. Gotta love Ma Bell." From the article: "Narus's software does far more than just frustrate Skype users. It can also diagnose, and react to, denial-of-service attacks and dangerous viruses and worms as they wiggle through a network. It makes possible digital wiretaps, a capability that carriers are required by law to have. However, these positive applications for Narus's software may not be enough to make Internet users warm to its use. 'Protecting its network is a legitimate thing for a carrier to do ... But it's another thing for a Comcast to charge more if I use my own TiVo instead of the personal video recorder they provide, or for Time Warner, which owns CNN, to charge a premium if I want to watch Fox News on my computer.'" VoIP Backlash From Phone Companies Log in/Create an Account | Top | 235 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 235 comments 0: 232 comments 1: 175 comments 2: 123 comments 3: 37 comments 4: 14 comments 5: 10 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. slashdotted out of the gate (Score:3, Insightful) by cagle_.25 (715952) on Friday October 21, @05:32PM (#13848156) (Last Journal: Thursday August 25, @07:44PM) Heh ... I couldn't even RTFA with 0 comments posted. *Sigh*. Question for the knowledgeable: could VOIP companies invoke the WTO for anti-competitive practices? [ Reply to ThisRe:slashdotted out of the gate by Pentavirate (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:38PMRe:slashdotted out of the gate by GuidoW (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:29PMRe:slashdotted out of the gate by SpaceLifeForm (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:slashdotted out of the gate (Score:4, Funny) by chucks86 (799149) <chucks86@gmail.com> on Friday October 21, @05:57PM (#13848396) I accidentally clicked the link and was directed to the site right away... Strange thing, this Internet. [ Reply to This | ParentNarus by Rac3r5 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:21PMRe:Narus by fimbulvetr (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.WTO : I don't think. by DrYak (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:20PMstardestroyer.net by Sir_Eptishous (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:39PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Bell? (Score:5, Funny) by Thu25245 (801369) on Friday October 21, @05:33PM (#13848166) phone companies in France, Germany, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced...Gotta love Ma Bell.Which RBOCs would those be? BellFrance, German Bell, and Mideast Bell? [ Reply to ThisRe:Bell? by pomo monster (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:05PMRe:Bell? by mooingyak (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:07PMWhat me Worry about the Man by djdavetrouble (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:15PMRe:By Law by Xaositecte (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:44PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. In a related story...... (Score:5, Informative) by 8127972 (73495) on Friday October 21, @05:33PM (#13848167) .... Some phone companies in Canada are tying to brand their services so that they don't sound like they're VoIP because of the negativity associated with these services.http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/ArticleNews /TPStory/LAC/20051020/TWVOIP20/TPTechnology/?query =voip [globetechnology.com] [ Reply to ThisRe:In a related story...... by gmack (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:15PM This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Insightful) by markana (152984) on Friday October 21, @05:34PM (#13848175) As if it wasn't on the way anyway...The carriers will then have a choice: let the encrypted traffic through, or restrict their customer's Internet use to only approved (and monitored) traffic.It will be interesting to see which option various countries choose... [ Reply to This Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Insightful) by Edmund Blackadder (559735) on Friday October 21, @05:40PM (#13848239) The thing is, if you decide to ban encrypted traffic, you may as well say goodbye to internet commerce. All on-line purchases are done trough secure connections. I don't think any western country is going to ban encrypted traffic anytime soon. Online sellers are well established and they won't let it happen. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by whovian (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:28PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by ScrewMaster (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:53PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by fimbulvetr (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:59PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by JesseMcDonald (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:40PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by JesseMcDonald (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:28PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Interesting) by jrockway (229604) * <jrockway@ieee. o r g> on Friday October 21, @05:41PM (#13848246) (http://www.uic.edu/~jrockw2/index.html | Last Journal: Sunday October 10, @05:11AM) Skype is encrypted and P2P. Yet they can still block it.Also, if your VoIP service ever uses real phone lines, the telco can easily block it.If this happened in the US, though, it would be an illegal abuse of their monopoly powers. When they start censoring certain data, they lose their common carrier status as well, so they become liable for all the child porn, viruses, illegal movie downloads, etc. that they transfer. Probably not a road they want to go down.However, I guess cable companies in the US aren't common carriers, so they can (and do) block other VoIP. Someone needs to sue them for this -- it's absolutely ridiculous. When you break part of the Internet, you aren't an ISP anymore. You're a Content That We Cram Up Your Ass Service Provider... just like cable companies are already.Personally, I use Speakeasy DSL which does nothing but route bits to and from my machine. That's the way the Internet should be! [ Reply to This | Parent Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... (Score:5, Interesting) by Nogami_Saeko (466595) on Friday October 21, @05:51PM (#13848345) Skype doesn't use random ports and protocols does it? It needs to handshake the two programs before the encrypted data transfer starts, which probably makes it relatively easy to block at the router level.That said, it shouldn't be impossible to masquerade VOIP data as something like a first-person shooter data stream (many of which have voice-chat already integrated), or by some other means that would result in the ISP/Telco blocking legitimate users as well and raising their angst level.Fighting technology is a losing proposition for conventional telcos, so they better find a way to work with users rather than against them...N. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by Loonacy (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:04PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by rebelcan (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:14PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by jc42 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:44PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by pyrrhonist (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:28PMRaising a good point - online games for talk by SuperKendall (Score:3) Friday October 21, @06:18PMRe:Raising a good point - online games for talk by kd5ujz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:35PMRe:Raising a good point - online games for talk by JPriest (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:38PMRe:Raising a good point - online games for talk by zuki (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @12:22AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by MikeB90 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:04PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by shakah (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:58PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by jrockway (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:35PMwhat if they break it... by johnny cashed (Score:3) Friday October 21, @06:00PMBut then online games suffer and Microsoft... by SuperKendall (Score:3) Friday October 21, @06:04PMRe:But then online games suffer and Microsoft... by johnny cashed (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:06PMRe:But then online games suffer and Microsoft... by Professor_UNIX (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:20PMChess by johnny cashed (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:24PMRe:But then online games suffer and Microsoft... by JPriest (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:43PMRe:But then online games suffer and Microsoft... by AstroDrabb (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:28PMRe:what if they break it... by mattbee (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:14PMRe:what if they break it... by SeaFox (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:18PMRe:what if they break it... by tylernt (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:32PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by chill (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:42PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by jrockway (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:38PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by ncc74656 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:46PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.The other way around. by DrYak (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:10PMRe:The other way around. by A5un (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:43PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by MichaelSmith (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:43PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by jc42 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:54PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by MichaelSmith (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:28PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by Jacco de Leeuw (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:13PMRe:This will spur encrypted VoIP... by AstroDrabb (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:40PM What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:2, Insightful) by RentonSentinel (906700) on Friday October 21, @05:35PM (#13848179) (Last Journal: Tuesday August 16, @06:10PM) The U.N. is comprised of many of these repressive anti-freedom regimes. Thankfully, they only control what happens within their borders.To all slashdotters who want U.N. control of the internet- behold, internationalization and diversity prove inferior to plain old fashioned American ideals yet again. [ Reply to ThisRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by nharmon (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:45PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by smitty_one_each (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:22PM Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:5, Insightful) by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Friday October 21, @05:48PM (#13848317) To all slashdotters who want U.N. control of the internet- behold, internationalization and diversity prove inferior to plain old fashioned American ideals yet again. What the fuck are you on about? These are foreign corporations that want to screw all the consumers, as usual, and as pioneered by the, oh-so-democratically great US corporations. It is the corporations which are the enemy here and the UN has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Furthermore, corporate sponsored entities, the WTO and WIPO do have everything to do with this, and yet, somehow, I do see brainwashed tools shreeking at the top of their lungs about the UN and not them. It is a democratic duty of every citizen of any democratic nation, be it US, Canada, France, Germany or any other to oppose corporatists at every turn, because corporatism and democracy are mutually exclusive. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by shmlco (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:38PM Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:5, Interesting) by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Friday October 21, @07:14PM (#13849015) Huh? Care to explain how THAT follows? It is rather simple: The stated and exclusive purpose of a corporation is to generate profit. The optimal condition to generate maximum profit is a government-protected monopoly. Therefore most corporations, once they reach certain size, actively work to undermine democratic processes, by attempting to lobby, bribe politicians and influence public opinion via affiliated media in order to fulfill their purpose to its full extent. Furthermore, once a corporation unduly grows in size, via acquisitions and mergers, with each expansion it becomes less and less a construct of a free market and more and more an ingredient of an oligarchy, as at each stage of consolidation the overall level of free market competition is lessened. The optimal political system for these corporations, once they are large enough, is fascism. Today, some corporations have accumulated more wealth and power then entire nations. All of the above, combined, simply means that the purposes of corporations are at odds of those of cirizenry. The capitalist free market as well as the democratic societies in general are simply not equipped to deal with artificial "persons" of immesurable power and wealth, rivalling those of the representative governments. Corporations were never intended to be this way, nor does Adam Smith's theory take their existence properly into account as his was a theory of socially beneficial side-effects of personal greed aided by inventiveness to be aggressively and efficiently counter-balanced by competition. Thus large (especially multi-national) corporations are contrary to both the democratic credo of representative govenance and capitalist marketplace. Thereofre it is a duty of every believer in democracy and personal freedoms to oppose those who believe in governance by corproations for corporations and to insist that severe limits and restrictions be placed on the size and political activities of corporations. As corporatists believe the exact opposite, it is therefore a duty of every democratically oriented citizen of every country to oppose corporatists.Is this the amusing explanation you wanted? [ Reply to This | ParentMOD PARENT UP! by Stephen Ma (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:46PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by Peter La Casse (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:10PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by RentonSentinel (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:50PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by IgnoramusMaximus (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:25PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by RentonSentinel (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:35PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by Stephen Ma (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:57PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by SEE (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:36PMRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by dextroz (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:What would the U.N. think of this? (Score:4, Insightful) by ahillen (45680) on Friday October 21, @06:04PM (#13848454) The U.N. is comprised of many of these repressive anti-freedom regimes.Well, at least as far as Germany and France are concerned, the "regimes" mentionend in the article are Vodafone and SFR, both cell phone providers. I can asure you that neither of them is member of the UN. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:What would the U.N. think of this? by Nicolas MONNET (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:18PM4 replies beneath your current threshold. Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? (Score:3, Interesting) by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday October 21, @05:36PM (#13848191) (http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 24, @01:27PM) Heineken will end TV adverts in the UK due to perception of declining connection with thecore market, 18-26 year olds. It was mentioned on the BBC World Service that a possiblefurther consideration was the use of Sky+ and TiVo which allow viewers to skip commercials.It could also be that the core group spend more time on the internet than watching TV.So less return on television advertising, thanks to the evolution of technology, and whatfuture does this have for television entertainment, if the place to advertise isn't the tube?Product placement, I suppose. Let's have a surreptitious party on the show with people having whatis undeniably a very good time and feature Heineken cans/bottles, perhaps have an actor say, "this Heinekenbeer is excellent, much more flavourful then other leading brands."Harlo Wilcox, Don Wilson and Bill Goodwin, your kind we shall meet again. [ Reply to ThisRe:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by justasecond (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:15PMRe:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by ackthpt (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:30PMRe:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by justasecond (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:36PMRe:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by ackthpt (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:47PMSome ads I'd miss by phorm (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:17PMIt's the advertizers fault by grahamsz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:40PMRe:Other Backlash, Thank TiVo? by Netscryer (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Outlaw CLECs (Score:1, Redundant) by wiredlogic (135348) on Friday October 21, @05:37PM (#13848203) Why don't they just outlaw VOIP CLECs that connect to their internal phone networks? This would be much easier that trying to filter packets. [ Reply to This Good bye ma bell (Score:3, Insightful) by canuck57 (662392) on Friday October 21, @05:39PM (#13848215) They have been ripping us off for years because of their monopoly. Now they must compete or dye. Me, I already don't use the local telco and haven't looked back.Good bye ma bell.... don't need you. [ Reply to ThisRe:Good bye ma bell by GecKo213 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:52PMNah, you're reading it wrong. by fireboy1919 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:14PMRe:Good bye ma bell by KC7GR (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:10PMRe:Good bye ma bell by stoanhart (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:44PMRe:Good bye ma bell by linsys (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:38PM Its called a Term of Service (Score:4, Insightful) by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday October 21, @05:39PM (#13848220) For instance, Cox Cable @Home explicitly says "No VPNs", but many users do anyway. It would be a simple matter for them to block IPSec traffic, or even regular UDP/500 traffic. (yes, there are SSL VPNs, blah blah blah). And you couldn't complain, because you signed the contract.In other countries, not even Soviet Russia, there are State-owned Telcos, which have implicit or explicit Terms of Service. I'm sure the Telco in Saudi Arabia says things like "no porn, no homosexual activity, nothing critical of Islam" etc. They ALSO probably say "no VoIP".Don't like it? Don't use the service... oh wait, you have to, because its a State owned monopoly. Oh well, strive for political change then. [ Reply to ThisRe:Its called a Term of Service by interiot (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:05PMRe:Its called a Term of Service by imemyself (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:51PMNo VPNs, eh? by jd (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:20PM Fight Fire WIth Fire? (Score:2, Funny) by Bodysurf (645983) on Friday October 21, @05:40PM (#13848236) # ping -f narus.com [ Reply to ThisRe:Fight Fire WIth Fire? by lixee (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:46PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. I don't think that would fly in the US (Score:2) by confusion (14388) on Friday October 21, @05:40PM (#13848237) (http://www.syslog.org/) Wasn't there recently a /. article about a court case that ruled that ISP's can't block access to certain sites because they 'compete' with said ISP?Besides, if you like foxnews, comcast is the most people get is already, albeit over cable tv, not internet.I really hope we don't see this deterioration of the internet, though.Jerryhttp://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org] [ Reply to ThisRe:I don't think that would fly in the US by Spetiam (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:50PMRe:I don't think that would fly in the US by ahillen (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:00PMRe:I don't think that would fly in the US by 6*7 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:20PMRe:I don't think that would fly in the US by Spetiam (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:59PMRe:I don't think that would fly in the US by walt-sjc (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:48PM Common carrier status? (Score:4, Interesting) by strider3700 (109874) on Friday October 21, @05:40PM (#13848238) I thought all of the phone companies qualify as common carriers and are not responsible for whats on their networks because they can't and shouldn't control it. Now that they have filtering ability for somethings they should be charged for every copied song and every piece of child porn moving on their wires. [ Reply to ThisRe:Common carrier status? by shutdown -p now (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:55PMRe:Common carrier status? by Wesley Felter (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:57PM Similar article in the WSJ (Score:5, Informative) by Strudelkugel (594414) on Friday October 21, @05:41PM (#13848252) Today's Wall Street Journal Online [wsj.com] also has an article. It discusses the attempts US domestic carriers are making to block third party services, as well as limiting file sharing and other "hi bandwidth" uses. Fortunately the FCC has prevented the major carriers from blocking independent VOIP providers, but Europeans evidently have a different view, which is weird since our consumer internet connectivity sucks compared to theirs, let alone Asia.Just shows what an overpriced cash cow voice is now. [ Reply to ThisRe:Similar article in the WSJ by ballpoint (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. slapped and fined (Score:2) by mqx (792882) on Friday October 21, @05:43PM (#13848264) If they try to do this, you can be sure that the competition authorities will slap and fine them over it. Complain as you will about EU or national authorities, but as we've seen with Microsoft ruling, they are quite active on anti-competitive issues, and a teleco that tries to block VOIP so as to ensure the the customer has to use the telco services and can't choose to use a lower priced alternative service will find itself in lots of trouble. [ Reply to ThisRe:slapped and fined by 6*7 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Wiretaps? (Score:3, Funny) by slashmojo (818930) on Friday October 21, @05:44PM (#13848277) It makes possible digital wiretaps, a capability that carriers are required by law to have. However, these positive applications for Narus's software may not be enough to make Internet users warm to its use. Wiretaps are a positive feature for users? No doubt governments/law enforcement get very warm and tingly over wiretaps but I can't see users warming to it quite so much.Now spyware on the other hand, thats something that really does get users hot and bothered! ;) [ Reply to This What good does it really do to block... (Score:2) by GecKo213 (890491) on Friday October 21, @05:44PM (#13848278) VoIP calls? How can the entire country say that they're going to block VoIP calls? What good can it possibly accomplish? I'm curious why any of you think they may do this? Are they wanting to get a piece of the pie and then allow the calls? This just confuses me. I realize business doesn't want people to have it's products or services for free, but to shut down a phone network to people who say couldn't afford to call their family in Germany so they get Skype and then can use voice to communicate is rediculous to me! [ Reply to ThisRe:What good does it really do to block... by MichaelSmith (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:57PMRe:What good does it really do to block... by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:46PMRe:What good does it really do to block... by smellsofbikes (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Time for strong encryption. (Score:2) by Control Group (105494) on Friday October 21, @05:50PM (#13848338) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/control_group) Good encryption should prevent a third party from determining any information about the payload. Bury all the protocol details in the data, initiate the session with a completely innocuous public-key encrypted exchange of symmetric keys, and proceed.If carriers want to block all encrypted traffic, well...that's a whole different problem. [ Reply to ThisRe:Time for strong encryption. by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:48PM Ebay (Score:2) by certsoft (442059) on Friday October 21, @05:52PM (#13848354) (http://www.certsoft.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 26, @07:27PM) Ebay just paid how much for Skype, like 3 or 4 billion? I wonder how long before Skype and others figure out a way around the detection algorithms. [ Reply to This Skype? (Score:2) by autopr0n (534291) on Friday October 21, @05:53PM (#13848365) (http://autopr0n.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 06, @02:30AM) I was under the impressiont that skype could not be blocked, since the packets are all encrypted and contain no identifying information. [ Reply to This China's National Networks... (Score:3, Informative) by theCSapprentice (921974) on Friday October 21, @05:54PM (#13848371) Check out Narus's homepage...http://www.narus.com/ [narus.com]Now tell me that a company certified for China's National Networks is who we want to secure the general internet. Its almost as if they are saying YES to censorship and control. I'm not saying security is a bad thing, but pick how you do it with care... [ Reply to ThisRe:China's National Networks... by Ilgaz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:27PM Tried in Norway and Failed (Score:5, Interesting) by johnjaydk (584895) on Friday October 21, @05:55PM (#13848376)