Anti-VOIP technologies?

[Veazer]

I've seen a few articles around about this and find it very disturbing. I'm interested to hear the thoughts and opinions of others.

The VoIP Backlash

Can Narus single-handedly kill VOIP telephony?

[isepic]

when service providers stop getting money, hopefully they will allow some sort of tunneling (defeats port blocking, and stateful packet inspection). Unless of course, encrypted data is blocked, but there goes all the SSL web sites, etc. I doubt, in the U.S. that is, this will be allowed by the FCC.

[Veazer]

Originally Posted by isepic

when service providers stop getting money, hopefully they will allow some sort of tunneling (defeats port blocking, and stateful packet inspection). Unless of course, encrypted data is blocked, but there goes all the SSL web sites, etc. I doubt, in the U.S. that is, this will be allowed by the FCC.

My VOIP knowledge is limited, but it seems like TOS flags are a simple way for them to mark existing voip traffic and then screw it up. The voip stuff I've used is always using 0x68 for SIP and 0xb8 for RTP. Even if our packets are encrypted, can't they take a good guess at what we are sending based on TOS values and introduce massive jitter or latency?

It's like having a shipping company intentionally abuse our packages and deliver them late because we didn't let them profit from packaging.

I'd be interested to here what companies like AT&T intened to do since they offer traditional PSTN, broadband and VOIP. Are they only going to mess with VOIP traffic from competitors? :?

I'm also curious why Comcast has such an interest in this. How do they stand to benefit by interfering with VOIP?

[mberlant]

ToS flags aren't a reliable indicator of the type of traffic being carried in the packet they are tagged to. First of all, most ISPs simply strip off the flag at the access router so you can't get the priority you were asking for (without paying extra for).

Using a ToS flag to identify VoIP is similar to saying that "you must be driving a school bus because your speed is 45 MPH."

As for any ISP's interest in interfering with certain traffic, it's purely misguided financial desire. If your ISP offers VoIP service at $40 per month extra, they have an incentive to make your $25 spent with Vonage seem like a waste of money.

There is a direct parallel to this already in the cellular industry. Many cellular companies intentionally cripple the phones they sell you so that you can only move photos and ringtones in and out of your phone using their (extra charge) services. Your phone may have a USB or iRDA connection on it, but you won't be able to use that connection to move your photos to your PC for free.

As isepic mentioned, consumer backlash seems to me to be the most effective tool to combat these techniques. The first ISP to implement such interference will likely see customer flight. There is already customer flight away from Verizon DSL in major markets amongst people who cannot tolerate their inbound blocking of ports 80 and 22.

[Veazer]

I didn't mean to imply that TOS tags could accurately spot VOIP out in the "big traffic" but rather traffic coming into the ISP from their residential customers. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of other internet devices in the consumer market that use TOS that I am aware of. Anything else come to mind?

I agree with your points regarding ISP motivation and I hope consumers do choose to vote wisely with their pocketbooks when choosing providers. Not surprisingly, comcast is offereing voip service which may explain their interest in Narus.

I'm not sure the cellphone crippling is a direct parallel. In those cases, the consumer often knows that the phone provider has fully disabled features to benefit themselves. With the Narus-type technology they can reduce competitors performance to attempt to improve their own image. Some consumers may be educated enough to know what is occuring, but i think the majority will wrongly perceive that the offending party is offering a superior product.

[mberlant]

Originally Posted by Veazer

I'm not sure the cellphone crippling is a direct parallel. In those cases, the consumer often knows that the phone provider has fully disabled features to benefit themselves. With the Narus-type technology they can reduce competitors performance to attempt to improve their own image. Some consumers may be educated enough to know what is occuring, but i think the majority will wrongly perceive that the offending party is offering a superior product.

Good observation. I believe that most cell phone buyers will be equally oblivious, but now that you mention it I think that more VoIP customers will be hoodwinked than cell phone customers.