LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | I see a lot of use for this
In corporate networks
But for home ISPs? I don't think so! |
|
jboyo
join:2004-06-10
North York, ON | Oohhh
This is so evil.
"I hate it when my customers try to get what they pay for!" ...sometimes these people sicken me. |
|
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| Who hates Skype?
Who are the ones running to him claiming they hate skype?
Skype's competitors? The other VoIP companies that make you pay?
Is it the ISP's who are finding out, with all this bandwidth intensive software, that their networks aren't up to par?
Is it greed hungry ISP's such as Shaw and others who know they're networks aren't up to par, yet would rather limit customers access than spend a small amount of money to properly implement their service?
Is it network admins that can't, for some reason block Skype and need to buy a box dedicated to doing just that?
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. |
|
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | I guess skype wants to have a nice backgraound check when someonme aquires them  |
|
wishfulthinker9999
| The almighty $$$$$
VoIP companies are scared of losing business, so they put pressure on ISPs(who also want a share of the VoIP market).
Then combine this with the fact that ISPs are looking for ways to limit their broadband traffic so they can have more customers on the same lines without spending money to increase lines and bandwidth.
One solution would be to encrypt all information in a way that packet analyzers can't determine the content being sent/received. This will most definately come at a cost to performance, but in the end you will have anonymous packets which can't be filtered because there is no way to tell if someone is streaming video or music, playing video games, making phone calls, downloading programs/files, etc.
There is no way to stop people from using a service which they pay for unless they shut it off. |
|
WirelessMajr
Premium
join:2005-08-03
College Place, WA
| Interesting
While I can see a small need for this in a corporate environment (the ones who hire consulting firms because they fired all the IT staff...just because the damn bean counters wanted to "save" money), I cant see what a residential ISP would gain from this, especially seeing that VoIP traffic isnt all that heavy at all, fitting perfectly within the 128kbps upstream that most providers offer. |
|
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Typo
Verso not Verio. |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to Wills
Re: Who hates Skype?
Yeah, skype has a tendency to run on any TCP port, so it's hard to block in corporate networks. And it sucks bandwidth for private employee use instead of being available for corproate applications.
Cisco developped a specific extension to the NBAR service to finally be able to block skype. But I think it got bypassed by skype again... |
|
liquidnw
join:2005-06-05
Bronx, NY
| reply to WirelessMajr
Re: Interesting
Isn't this exactly what congress and the FCC was supposed to be preventing. As long as your not doing anything illegal I don't see how this product would fly in the US. If this is allowed then what would be the next? Cable companies don't particularly like the fact that MLB stream games over the net as well as the networks putting lots of content online. Would they block those next and claim its eating up bandwidth? Or if a ISP launched there own music service would they block competing music services? Allowing this would essentially kill network neutrality. |
|
DonLibes
Premium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19
| reply to LilYoda
Re: I see a lot of use for this
said by LilYoda  :In corporate networks Why would corporate networks want to block Skype? The corporate network where I work charges us for bandwidth. (They could care less what the bandwidth is used for as long as someone pays for it.) Actually, they don't charge us yet - but that's what they've announced as their ultimate goal. |
|
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
| More Baby Food Please
Cuz I couldn't possibly take care of myself or monitor my own traffic.
quote:
...our new NetSpective 2.0 blocks applications such as Skype, Peer-2-Peer (P2P) messaging, streaming media and instant messaging that increasingly cause congestion on internal networks and degrade service for other critical applications.
Whose critial applications? Yours?
quote:
NetSpective 2.0 blocks unregulated traffic that could potentially result in violations of federal communications regulations, or illegal copyright violations through accessing of protected materials...
Wouldn't this be just lovely for the **AA vvvveeeerry convenient.
Here is the best part 
This solution evolved from specific demands from the enterprise market to exercise more control over network activities, and to monitor and control the estimated 30% of productive time loss attributed to surfing, instant messaging, unsanctioned VoIP and downloading,"
Who's 30% loss? And who are they to care? If I wanna stay at home and veg for 72 hours on the web that my perogative. And this tripe about so-called "enterprises" crying is pure bunk cus the way I see it...if these "enterprises" are griping so much about workers slacking off on the web....THEN YOU GET A BETTER FIREWALL! They could have done this crap by themselves, they don't need regulation. BS. So don't give me that crap.
As per usual money is behind it. People are getting P.O.ed because they're selling milk @ $10 bucks a gallon, meanwhile people are getting the cows for free somewhere else. |
|
Sunsetstrip
Go Kings
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-08
West Hollywood, CA
clubs:
| Sad
Just another nail in the internet's coffin,it won't be complete until the corporate world has complete control and the ability to profit off of everything that you see,read,hear,or do on the net.
If my ISP were to block Skype or for that matter torrents or anything else that was legal I would drop them that day
--
My Photo Gallery
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." Edward Weston |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Hmm..
I can't help but see the ramifications of this.. Not the Product but the idea.
Next week MSN/AOL announces a 25 cent fee for emailing people outside of the MSN AOL network.. |
|
IOddity
join:2005-06-06
Rio Dell, CA
| reply to LilYoda
Re: Who hates Skype?
Well there are some nice new toys out there that block traffic not by port but by packet content itself. It 'sniffs' the beginning of each packet, and decides what needs to be done from there. This type of checking is even usable on very large amounts of traffic and very efficient. I watched one at work cutting down the p2p traffic and was frankly impressed. Even as a p2p enthusiast it's hard not to admire neat solutions. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Yea for Capitalism!!
I use Skype for attending meeting while I'm working from home. The 800 Webex numbers are free and the sound quality is much better than anything short of being in the same room. Both IM and Skype are useful communications tools where I work. Blocking either would be silly and counterproductive. To prevent abuses, all of our traffic is potentially monitored and the bandwidth and the computer resources that are used are minimal on most relatively new machines and network infrastructures.
If the ISP's are only pushing for this type of equipment so they can sell their own products that are most likely inferior in quality, shame on them. If they are that determined to ruin customer relations and services in the pursuit of making a profit, why not just use the bandwidth exclusively for downloading advertisements and junk mail?
What's next, photos of the baby sent to grandma blocked because it is not cost effective to the ISP? How about the cable TV cutting out for an hour if a motion sensor on the box senses that you left for the kitchen or bathroom during a commercial break? I hate the double dipping. I pay $60 a month so that I can take advantage of the many offerings and free services that I can utilize with my expensive internet connection. If I am going to be charged for each IM, credit card purchase, download, upload, stream, or voice communication, then sell the base service at a reduced cost. If they take all of the incentive to have high-speed internet away from the customer, how many will still be willing to fork over big bucks?
Everyone wants to make a profit, but a lot of people are pinching pennies now as the all-mighty dollar just doesn't put as much food on the table right now. Skype is gaining in popularity at an alarming rate (at least to ISP's apparently) because it is an alternative to using otherwise expensive means to communicate. If they expect people to dump loads of cash into a cable-owned VOIP application after crippling free/cheaper services, they've got some work to do in their marketing divisions. |
|
NoOne_IMportant
@verizon.ne
| Maybe...
Hmm, another possibility.... Isn't Skype going to be purchased? Isn't odd that this just happens after this fact? Hmmm... Wasn't there something about someone killing something? (Sorry me mind is a bit foggy at the moment).
Just something to think about. |
|
chaser7016
@68.34.x.x
| Blocking technology will not be allowed by the FCC, as evidenced by the FCC coming down on the ISPs that started doing such early in the year.
What will happen is that our ISP bills will start mirroring cell phone bills; allowed a certain amount of bandwidth per month and any overage you pay for. I can see Verizon Wireless Broadband to be the first to instill such a plan.
Chaser |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to DonLibes
Re: I see a lot of use for this
When employees start firing up skype and calling their buddies, they eat up the corporate bandwidth... If it affects other employees that are trying to use the internet for legit business purposes, or it reduces the amount of bandwidth available let's say for the corporate website, then you have a problem.
Billing it to the end user (the employee for example) isn't a solution, because you still have a bandwidth shortage. And you can't upgrade your bandwidth since you don't know if next month your users are going to use skype. If they aren't you end up with more bandwidth than you need (which isn't too bad) and a bill higher than you planned to pay (which is baaaaaaaaad) |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | reply to IOddity
Re: Who hates Skype?
I think that's exactly what this box is, albeit limited to sniffing of P2P, IM and skype traffic. Which is I said that such devices are needed in corporate environment nowadays, since traffic blocking by port isn't cutting it anymore. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to chaser7016
Re: Maybe...
said by chaser7016 :
Blocking technology will not be allowed by the FCC, as evidenced by the FCC coming down on the ISPs that started doing such early in the year.
What will happen is that our ISP bills will start mirroring cell phone bills; allowed a certain amount of bandwidth per month and any overage you pay for. I can see Verizon Wireless Broadband to be the first to instill such a plan.
Chaser
And then the one company that offers unlimited bandwidth will enjoy AOL like success. Remember all the trouble AOL caused when they offered unlimited dial-up service for a standard price? Nobody could connect and those that did had to find clever ways to keep their connection alive for 24 hours or they would have to fight millions of others for the limited, oversold connections all over again.
In the end AOL made quite a few new users and a ton of money. Same type of thing will happen if they try and charge us like cell phones. In fact, even cell phone services are changing due to customer demand. |
|
