TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  reply to jose3030
Re: haha 0wn3d
said by jose3030  : If someone can figure out how to camouflage something, sooner or later, someone else will figure out how to ferret it out. The expert from APConnections just hasn't figured it out yet, but I am sure he will eventually. Besides the techniques he highlighted in his article, there are other techniques, used by the NSA and other spy agencies that can determine end points and type of traffic.
One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
1 edit | And what TECHNICAL benefit does adding jitter to any transmission add? name one...single...benefit?
There is none.. Yet you say they can and will and should do it?
You of course, have given us proof that Net Neutrality is REQUIRED to prevent this kind of thing. There is no technical reason whatsoever for the ONLY way to disrupt a VoIP call to exist. Thus, any company that uses said technique, is actively, not passively, ACTIVELY interfering with commerce. I can't wait to see Verizon or AT&T or Comcast get caught when an engineer spills his guts to the press about the devices they are using to interfere. The backlash is exactly what we need to crush these monopolies once and for all.
--
The central injustice of capitalism is the exploitation and alienation of labor. |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to TKJunkMail
A codec can be made overnight if someone works hard enough. By the time these people start blocking all VoIP traffic, another codec and port will be used to mask the existing data. I am not worried, as my ISP does NOT manipulate my VoIP traffic to my Asterisk server. I can handle 40 active calls at once using ILBC, and 15 using uLAW. The day it becomes impossible to use VoIP in the US on a standard residential line is the day I move to another country with FTTH, or fast DSL, because at the rate the US is moving, we'll never beat the speeds offered overseas. It's a shame too.  |
|
go-go-OpenSource
@verizon.net | Asterisk looks really cool. I have to watch that Systm episode about it and play with that Asterisk @ home server. I hope it starts making it way into the Enterprise soon. |
|
wilburyan
join:2002-08-01 | reply to TKJunkMail
There is one problem with your "Jitter" idea... how do you target Skype specificly?
What if the provider is delivering there own VOIP or multimedia service through the same connection? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by wilburyan :There is one problem with your "Jitter" idea... how do you target Skype specificly? What if the provider is delivering there own VOIP or multimedia service through the same connection? Comcast, Charter, others??, don't use std VOIP like Skype or Vonage does. They actually use a separate RF frequency on the cable(one not shared with the cable modem) to provide voice services. So their voice services don't share that std data internet channel. They use a private, separate path until they hand a voice call off to the POTS provider at a gateway. Therefore, anything they do to the data channel won't affect their voice services.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible. Wouldn't that affect online games? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by insomniac84 :said by TKJunkMail :One technique to affect voice calls involves the modification of packet forwarding thru the introduction of jitter that can scramble all voice calls but that has no noticeable effect on other traffic. You don't have to block the voice call, but just make it unintelligible. Wouldn't that affect online games? It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
iano0
join:2001-10-30
UK
| It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
My understanding is that the opposite would be the case - induced lag in an online game (especially an action intensive one such as an FPS) would be far less tolerable than a minor delay in a conversation.
Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by iano0 :It could. But induced changes in latency(ping times) could be less troublesome to online games than to a voice conversation, as long as they don't get too lengthy.
My understanding is that the opposite would be the case - induced lag in an online game (especially an action intensive one such as an FPS) would be far less tolerable than a minor delay in a conversation. Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target. You are probably correct. I'm not a gamer and I have no actual experience with what sub-second delays could mean inside some games.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
Wrong, wrong and wrong. More lies and FUD from the corporate drone.
Packetcable 1.0 (and 1.5) specs use EXACTLY the same frequencies as regular IP traffic. In fact, when you make a voice call over your comcast phone, you are giving up some of your bandwidth to make that call. It's hard to see downstream, but VERY easy to prove upstream. Start an FTP upload to a site, let the speed stabilize. Then make a comcast call. BOOM, you've lost about 7KB/sec transfer speed while the call is in progress.
Lie #2: The cable modem itself, being docsis compliant, uses EXACTLY the same pathway to the CMTS. If your CMTS is overwhelmed, or sucks, your digital voice will suck too. However, they have the OPTION to offload the traffic destined for the POTS network, by creating a separate Voice Path to the Media Gateway. Now we all know that comcrap isn't going to run a separate circuit to each CMTS just to give their voice a clean path, so they grab some channels from the uBRxxxx at the CMTS, and take it AWAY from your paid for bandwidth. This is a mini 2nd tier network, which they work very hard to keep quiet. It's EXACTLY the same thing they want to do with the 2nd tier for ANY traffic they can extort from providers. Pull off some channels, and give it a dedicated pathway, without actually 'building' a better internet to provide 'better' service. Steal from the poor, to pay to the rich, that's their motto.
Asking Retire Rich to explain a TECHNICAL answer to corporate extortion is like asking a fish how to ride a bike.
--
The central injustice of capitalism is the exploitation and alienation of labor. |
|
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA
| reply to iano0
said by iano0 :Consider for example a one second delay in a phone converation - an inconvenience but only slightly noticable. A one second delay in the middle of a Quake Deathmatch would be far less tolerable when trying to gun down a moving target. It would be bad for both. A 1 second delay is quite perceptible and very annoying in a voice conversation. Even as little as a quarter second can be perceived.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun |
|
iano0
join:2001-10-30
UK
| That's true, but I gave a delay of one second as an extreme example. I can't imagine an ISP deliberately causing that much lag.
My point was to highlight which would suffer most, the phone conversation would still be possible, the game would be unplayable. |
|
IsdnWolf
Premium
join:2002-05-24
Cleveland, TN
| reply to G_Poobah
In charter areas, we use an entire diffrent channel (frequency). Granted, it could be done in the same channel as voice, but the design was to use an entire diffrent channel.
Also, in most, but not all Charter Markets, an entire diffrent CMTS is used for voice. In east TN, we are using seperate CMTS's and seperate channels. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by IsdnWolf :In charter areas, we use an entire diffrent channel (frequency). Granted, it could be done in the same channel as voice, but the design was to use an entire diffrent channel. Also, in most, but not all Charter Markets, an entire diffrent CMTS is used for voice. In east TN, we are using seperate CMTS's and seperate channels. You mean Poobah was wrong. Again?
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
