On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
If someone want to be insane - allow him to do it; what's the problem?
Is
this question coming from Panamian government? -:)
when you have to comply with some insane gov't ruling at penalty of legal (possibly felony type actions) you will also squeal like the virtual pig... To comply with government, it is enough to SHOW blocking - block SIP and H323 standar ports. It is not your concern, if SkyPE can make a tricks.
But I believe, that to comply with anything in Panama you need just to give a $$$, not to set up acll lists.
This is internet - if I have 10 Mbit connection and 100msec latency, I
can
use it for Voice, no way to block me; if it is 19200bits/second and 2 second latency, I can not. That's all. Other methods can provide temporary reliefe only.
true, this was the arguement put forth to the folks at the time, they still insisted on their backwards, telco-minded thinking... Fortunately after a few months they saw the light and removed the requirement.
Joe might not be that lucky, or he might be able to show precedent to others about why it's bad to try to block the voip.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Robert Mathews wrote:
To Joe Shen:
Perhaps 'I am failing to see it' but, what can be gained by blocking VoIP traffic other than freeing bandwidth and CPU churnings?
reference panamanian gov'ts choice to protect legacy/incumbant carrier business by blocking voip. no one said it was 'smart' just that it was what the gov't wanted. Perhaps Joe lives in a similar situation?