RE: More on Vonage service disruptions...
Those are good points. Someone last week mentioned what I thought was a great list of priorities for an ISP: 1. Keep the network running 2. Remove those violating policies 3. Route packets (or something along those lines) A 30/50/90 kbps unicast stream isn't going to affect #1. I don't think any policies involved in #2 would cover a VoIP service either. That should leave #3 as the default for this traffic. I can picture a DDOS where infected Windows machines could send bogus SIP traffic to Vonage servers; in this case temporary blocking might be needed/justified. But until that happens, blocking SIP is just wrong. Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation Team 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch@netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Fergie (Paul Ferguson) Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:46 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: More on Vonage service disruptions... advancedIPpipeline is running another article this morning in their series of articles covering the Vonage service disruptions that [allegedly] invlove an ISP "port blocking" SIP connectitity between Vonage's client equipment and Vonage's servers. While there is a bit more decriptive detail in this article involving the nature of the service interruptions, Vonage's CEO, Jeffrey Citron, is trying to make a [in my opinion] weak argument that this type of traffic blocking is akin to censorship. http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/60404589 The silliness of the "censorship" argument aside, an interesting snippet within this article started me thinking abut the "slippery slope" which might ensue if any type of legislation is enacted which would attempt to prohibit an ISP from blocking traffic in an effort to keep it [unwanted traffic] from traversing their network: "'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." It looks to me like this is going to open up a huge can of worms. On one hand, you have ISP's who own their own infrastructure and have every right to prohibit traffic from traversing their network which does not conform to their AUP, business practices, technical standards, etc., or provide revenue. By the same token, and specifically when it comes to things like VoIP, we have these issues involving PUC's, FCC regulations, "equal access" rights, etc. IANAL (or a policy wonk), and I hope I'm wrong, but it certainly looks like things could get pretty ugly. - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
Church, Chuck wrote:
Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney...
Vonage is not supposed to be a Primary Line Service. IIRC, I got a big flyer with my welcome kit that basically said this is a Communications service, not a Telephone service, and it outlined the differences. What is more stable where you are, your broadband connection or your telephone line to your LEC? (if you still have one). I know in my case at home, the phone line was much more reliable, then my cable modem. I can count the times on 1 hand that I had been without Dial tone in the last 3 years (And I live in a rural area), but my cable modem connection goes out at least once a month. So if My cable modem goes out, I would be effectively without 911 also. As my ISP @ home is not a regulated entity, the only person I can complain to is them, or else take my business elsewhere. Even if the ISP in question is a LEC, normally the ISP side of the house is unregulated. The LEC providesthe circuit, and the ISP provides the bandwidth / services on that circuit. If you ISP decided to block VOIP, your cell phone call should be to their competition to order service from them, and vote with your dollars. Or at least to your ISP to call up and complain. Just my opinion, IANAL (I don't even play one on TV), etc... -Patrick -- Patrick Muldoon Network/Software Engineer INOC (http://www.inoc.net) PGPKEY (http://www.inoc.net/~doon) Key ID: 0x370D752C (A)bort, (R)etry, (P)retend this never happened?
Patrick Muldoon wrote:
What is more stable where you are, your broadband connection or your telephone line to your LEC? (if you still have one). I know in my case at home, the phone line was much more reliable, then my cable modem. I can count the times on 1 hand that I had been without Dial tone in the last 3 years (And I live in a rural area), but my cable modem connection goes out at least once a month.
You are starting with a faulty assumption - that you *know* when your phone service has been interrupted. Unless you have some sort of special dialtone test going 24x7x365, you have no way of knowing when your phone service was unavailable except if that unavailability coincided with a time when you tried to place a call. If it coincided with a time when someone tried to dial into you, they most likely didn't realize that their inability to reach you was due to a service interruption and probably didn't notify you about the problem if/when they were able to reach you at a later time. Where I am (in the geographic center of Silicon Valley) we have had power interruptions significant enough to reset digital clocks at least 5 times in the past 12 months. I suspect that POTS has been similarly interrupted even if I don't have any direct evidence of those interruptions. jc
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:46:05AM -0600, Church, Chuck wrote:
Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney...
Why? Do you have a binding legal agreement with your ISP that requires them to pass all traffic? Do you really think you can make a persuasive case that you have an implicit agreement to that effect? (Note that I am not expressing an opinion about whether you _should_ or _might like to_ have such an agreement, just my skepticism that you actually _do_ have such an agreement, and can enforce it) The 911 issue is a tremendous red herring. In fact, it's more of a red halibut, or perhaps a red whale. Vonage fought tooth-and-nail to *not* be considered a local exchange carrier precisely *so that* they could avoid the quality of service requirements associated with 911 service. One of their major arguments in that dispute was that they provided a service accessible by dialing 911 that was "like" real 911 service but that was "not actually 911 service". As I and others noted at the time, that very much violates the principle of least surprise, and is quite possibly more dangerous than not providing any 911 service at all: in New York City, for example, the number to which Vonage sends 911 calls is not equipped to dispatch emergency services and often advises callers to "hang up and dial 911": this _decreases_ public safety by causing people to waste time instead of dealing with emergencies in some constructive way. But Vonage persisted nonethess in insisting that they should not be held to real 911 service standards, and they prevailed, basically by convincing a compliant federal regulatory body with little or no understanding of the underlying technical and human-factors issues to force the state regulators to see it Vonage's way. To turn around now and use 911 reliability (of their service that is "like 911 but not 911" and thus should not _have_ any reliability standards enforced upon it) as a reason why other carriers should be enjoined from filtering Vonage's packets is not just wrong, it's absurd. Of course, like much of Vonage's other rhetoric, it will probably be effective. Ultimately, Vonage will succeed in the marketplace and, in the process of controlling its own costs, manage to wipe away almost all of the traditional regime of regulation of service quality, telco accountability, etc. even in realms like contact to emergency service in which the public good is generally considered to in fact be well served by those regulations. We will have cheaper voice telephone service when all is said and done but will we, eventually, be forced to turn around, after Vonage uses cheaper costs from differential regulation to wipe out all the old wireline carriers, to painfully reinstate a large part of the old regulatory regime to ensure that telecom services that we believe essential to the public good are not (or do not remain) wiped out as well? Thor
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:39:45 -0500 "Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@netbsd.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:46:05AM -0600, Church, Chuck wrote:
Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney...
Why? Do you have a binding legal agreement with your ISP that requires them to pass all traffic? Do you really think you can make a persuasive case that you have an implicit agreement to that effect?
(Note that I am not expressing an opinion about whether you _should_ or _might like to_ have such an agreement, just my skepticism that you actually _do_ have such an agreement, and can enforce it)
The 911 issue is a tremendous red herring. In fact, it's more of a red halibut, or perhaps a red whale. Vonage fought tooth-and-nail to *not* be considered a local exchange carrier precisely *so that* they could avoid the quality of service requirements associated with 911 service. One of their major arguments in that dispute was that they provided a service accessible by dialing 911 that was "like" real 911 service but that was "not actually 911 service".
The problem is that, as more people take up VOIP service, it cannot be long before some of those people start dropping wireline. Examples of possible places are apartment blocks, with DSL on the janitor's phone line, and each apartment having VOIP service off that DSL. When that happens, if VOIP access to 911/112 is still problematic, we can expect standards for it to be mandated by governments - and they WILL do it - there is nothing politicians hate more than an avoidable fatality where the blame can be attributed to their failure to act. Far better that "we" get this right in advance, so that nothing needs to be made mandatory anyway. Some of my responsibilities involve work protecting telecommunications for deaf people, where emergency calls may have to be made by means of text messages. Some very similar issues seem to be arising there! -- Richard Cox
When that happens, if VOIP access to 911/112 is still problematic, we can expect standards for it to be mandated by governments - and they WILL do it - there is nothing politicians hate more than an avoidable fatality where the blame can be attributed to their failure to act.
So what is legislation going to do short of banning VoIP applications that connect to the PSTN? So who's going to stand trial if fatalities occur because the 911 operator was unreachable? The ISP for having insufficient bandwidth, the janitor for sharing the DSL line, the phone owner for dropping legacy PSTN service...? Who would in their right mind rely on MSN Messenger for 911 access? Today residential VoIP service offered by Vonage or like companies is nothing more or less than your instant messenging gizmo. Perhaps it is more useful but by no means more reliable. Adi
* tls@netbsd.org (Thor Lancelot Simon) [Thu 03 Mar 2005, 23:01 CET]:
Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started blocking my Vonage, my next cell phone call would be my attorney... Why? Do you have a binding legal agreement with your ISP that requires
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:46:05AM -0600, Church, Chuck wrote: them to pass all traffic? Do you really think you can make a persuasive case that you have an implicit agreement to that effect?
Why, yes, an agreement for Internet access. The end-to-end principle is considered an integral part of the design (and power) of the Internet. Kindergarten ISPs exist but I do not buy from them. And the verbiage in the contract is that the ISP doesn't guarantee access but will do its best to provide and keep offering such.
The 911 issue is a tremendous red herring. In fact, it's more of a red halibut, or perhaps a red whale. Vonage fought tooth-and-nail
... and then you spend two entire pages derailing the debate towards emergency services. Thanks! Any provider intentionally causing deterioration of network performance towards a competitor's service offering is engaging in anticompetitive behaviour. This may be merely bad or legally suicidal. -- Niels. -- The idle mind is the devil's playground
participants (7)
-
Adi Linden -
Church, Chuck -
JC Dill -
Niels Bakker -
Patrick Muldoon -
Richard Cox -
Thor Lancelot Simon