 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | Wording "Don't handle traffic greater than 64kbps" = "We don't want applications that use that much bandwidth on our network."
That is very underhanded. | |
|
 | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Re: Wording said by Matt  :"Don't handle traffic greater than 64kbps" So does that mean any of their customers that surf web sites cab ONLY get 64kbps speeds?? If so, why would I want their service at all. Would rather have dialup..
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | I was leaning more towards absurd. | |
|
| |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | Re: Wording said by Pz_ :I was leaning more towards absurd. As was I. | |
|
Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| Can they win the battle? How can Vonage keep up with Clearwire's blocking of traffic? Can they manage to maintain multiple customers using different ports? I would appear that Vonage would have to switch Clearwire users to all use different ports which may or may not make it difficult to monitor or maintain.
GL Vonage. Clearwire is just another shady company in my book. | |
|
| 
davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
 ·Comporium
| Re: Can they win the battle? 1) Yes they can manage different users using different ports. Broadvox Direct even lets its users choose their own port settings in the end user portal (from a list of about 30) - so the user doesn't have to call to get it changed.
2) It would be so much simpler for hardware vendors and companies like Vonage if they'd just make the NIC in their softswitch answer on some well known port - i.e. port 80 (HTTP) or 443 (HTTPS). I'd like to see someone start blocking port 80 traffic on their network and see how many people get up in arms b/c they can't surf the web.
VoIP isn't limited to any specific port. TCP and UDP traffic really don't care what port is in use. The only reason we have usual ports for things like VoIP is to make it easy for equipment using multiple ports to avoid applications trying to use conflicting ports.
}Davoice | |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Port 80? Why don't they put their VoIP servers on common ports that the ISP isn't willing to block, like 80, 21, 23, etc. | |
|
| vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
1 edit | Re: Port 80? said by vpoko :Why don't they put their VoIP servers on common ports that the ISP isn't willing to block, like 80, 21, 23, etc. Good point, but alot of (varous) ISPs do block those various ports on the incoming.:(
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
| |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: Port 80? For incomming they could use any high port number that the OS normally uses for dynamic client ports. The ISP couldn't block those without sporadically affecting things like web browsing. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| I don't believe it's an incoming problem. Most of these ATA units work behind NAT firewalls that block all incoming ports. They do this by establishing an outbound socket connection to the VOIP provider and keeping that socket open. Once open, the VOIP provider can send information to the ATA through the already-open socket. I believe the return port on this socket is random and part of the standard TCP where the two hosts agree upon an unused port.
I think VOIP has trouble when certain types of protocols are filtered (RDP,SIP) or the well-known VOIP setup ports and TFTP are outbound blocked. This prevents the VOIP ATA from initiating service when it's booted.
In my opinion, the VOIP provider SIP back-ends could be configured to accept connections on a wide variety of seemingly random or even well-known ports (how about 100 or 1000 different ports, including 80, 443, 21, 23, etc.) If they could then program the ATA units to methodically walk that port list until a connection is established, it would be difficult for the ISP to block VOIP traffic by blocking a single port. Since the ATA accepts firmware upgrades, the VOIP provider could periodically change the list of ports to keep ahead of the ISP.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying it but it seems like they could make the blocking process very painful for ISPs. Of course the ISP could just blatantly block traffic to all of the VOIP provider's IPs. Naturally this could become a challenge if the VOIP provider could program the ATA to not only walk a port list but also a large list of different IP addresses (perhaps proxies located throughout the country...)
I read somewhere that a Mexican ISP is introducing random packet delays that play hell with VOIP quality. Of course the random delays are evident with every application but this approach would probably be impossible for the VOIP providers to overcome. | |
|
| | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
1 edit | Re: Port 80? said by rradina :I read somewhere that a Mexican ISP is introducing random packet delays that play hell with VOIP quality. Of course the random delays are evident with every application but this approach would probably be impossible for the VOIP providers to overcome. Imagine VPN access, or remote desktop which a hell of alot of people use. That idea would never fly in the US. It can stay right where it is in Mexico:p.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | unlimited bandwidth but.... ....if you actually want to use it you can't.
It's like saying you can have all the gold in Fort Knox.
Why dont these companies go under? | |
|
| 
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | Re: unlimited bandwidth but.... Why dont these companies go under?
MONOPOLY | |
|
| 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| said by inteller :Why dont these companies go under? Because in most places it is either Internet service with this company or you're stuck on dial-up.
The Bells and CableCos try to kill off municipalities because there is "competition" and say stuff like "private companies can do things better" and whatever capitalist rhetoric they can think of at the time. The 'free-market' theories that are thrown up by the Heartland Institute and the like stipulate that these kind of companies will go under. Competition is usually defined by the Bells and CableCos as two different selections in the same market. There's definitely a higher chance of collusion when there are less players on the field. The anti-muni stuff is an example of collusion.
The Bells don't really like VoIP. Unless, of course, they are providing it. The CableCos are hyping triple-quad-whatever play so they are doing their own little thing. It really is a nice way to kill off Vonage.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 | |
|
| |
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: unlimited bandwidth but.... good lord, in that case, move the FOCK away from there! I am not aware of many places these days that can offer DSL but not cable | |
|
| | |
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | Re: unlimited bandwidth but.... I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain. | |
|
X_Digit
Binary Enhanced
Premium
join:2003-06-12
Mansfield, TX
| Vonage... the new bullied kid on the block! I swear, what is it with other companies doing ALL they can... and clearly going OUT OF THEIR WAY to hinder Vonage's success?
Who's going to be next in line to either throttle their services, or cut them off completely? It's just very sad!
--
Respectfully, X_Digit | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Vonage... the new bullied kid on the block! This would probably be inefficient but if crap like this continues, high speed connections would be more free if the last mile was served as a physical layer (i.e. you get 1mhz on which to modulate any given data-link layer). When you buy the link, you terminate it to one of many ISPs. On top of this data link layer, the ISP and you run IP as the network layer.
Assuming there would be many ISPs capable of acting as end points and the first hop to the Internet, it would eliminate this monopolistic last-mile provider blocking crap. Of course they could always introduce static on the signal just to screw with you but...
This takes us back to the days of modems when that phone line was simply signal width connected to an endpoint, on which data was modulated. Wasteful but it's much harder for the monopolistic phone company to screw you.
I prefer the system we have. Perhaps legislation is needed to define what constitutes high-speed IP connections or is there already legislation like this on the books? | |
|
|
|
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs:
| Re: well Step out of the way and don't try to make up some VOIP tax either. Might as well tax IM and IRC too.
So lets see, can't use Vonage, P2P or bit torrent. Plus I get charged taxes on everything. (the proposed network tax along with internet sales tax) For the remaining things I can do, I get throttled back because I'm using too much of "their" bandwidth. (that they happen to be providing half as much for twice the price)
Why I am on the internet again?
 | |
|
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | This is the very reason why, for now, I will not touch VoIP. Until all of this back biting, blocking, finger pointing, stops. | |
|
cabana
now in pumpkin spice
Assistant
join:2000-07-07
New York, NY
1 edit |  (topic move) The truth about Clearwire
| |
|
|
|
|
Clearwire Vs. Vonage
