The Washington Post recently ran an interview with OpenDNS founder David Ulevitch, where he notes that Verizon Wireless appears to be blocking OpenDNS, such that users cannot easily route around Verizon Wireless' own DNS services. This seems like an odd decision for Verizon Wireless -- especially at a time when the government is seriously considering network neutrality regulations. You would think that the company would recognize that blatantly blocking a competing service from being used might attract some attention. Perhaps Verizon Wireless is hoping that people won't care because "OpenDNS" sounds boring? Or perhaps they're still working on this belief that "wireless" plays by different rules?

Ah, Hulu. The online TV streaming service has been leading a life of contradiction from day one. It's been trying to build a service that can successfully "compete with free," while being owned by the TV companies, who are scared to death of cannibalizing their own business. We've discussed in the past how this puts Hulu in an impossible position. The fact that it regularly has to have its engineers block access to any device or software that surfs the web over a TV is just one ridiculous example. Danny Sullivan perhaps sums it up best in his review of Google TV, after discovering that Hulu is (of course) blocking access to anyone using Google TV:

Hey Hulu -- you kind of suck. I'm not trying to access you from Google TV. I'm trying to access you using a web browser, which just happens to run through Google TV. Explain to me again why if I hook my computer up to my TV, and navigate to Hulu to watch the shows you offer for free, that's OK. But if I use my Google TV computer, that same free content is verboten -- and the only way for me to get to it is if in the future, you decide to make the free content available through your not-so-free $10 per month Hulu Plus service that's not even available beyond special invites on your own site.

Here's a thought. Enough of blocking Google TV and apparently other services like Boxee. Either block EVERYONE on the web or block no one, because in the end, you turn people who love you when they reach you on their computers (like me) into people who hate you when they're blocked in other places (like me).

Admittedly, Hulu is apparently getting pressure from the TV companies to do these blocks, but it still makes no sense. All things like Boxee and Google TV are doing is providing a browser. As Danny notes, if I just hooked up my laptop to the same TV, I could watch Hulu just fine. Why is it a problem if it's using a different piece of hardware? It makes no sense.

Of course, Google is now negotiating with the networks to "allow" their content to be viewed on Google TV. Is it just me or is this extremely troubling? How would people react if, say, the New York Times suddenly announced that it would not be viewable on Dell computers or in Firefox, unless Dell or Mozilla paid up? People would go nuts. Yet, that's exactly what is happening here.

In the meantime, we've already covered Hulu's ridiculous paywall plans, which even the company admits completely suck. Rumors are now spreading that so few people are interested in getting pretty much nothing for $10/month, that Hulu is now planning to cut the fee in half. Of course, if they're blocking access to random browsers for whatever ridiculous reason (and still not going ad free), then why would anyone pay?

While there's a lot of attention being paid to the French "three strikes law," and the organization, Hadopi, that is planning a system for implementing it, it appears that another form of internet censorship is happening via the courts in France. Reader JJ sends over the news that ISPs in France are being ordered to block access to certain "unauthorized" gambling websites. The country's gambling regulator, Arjel, ordered the ISPs to block certain gambling sites, and after a court battle, it appears Arjel has won. Effectively, the court has ruled that the French government can order ISPs to censor the internet, which seems like the sort of story that should be getting more attention.

Last week we noted that Pakistan had chosen to start censoring a bunch of big websites, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon. And now the EFF notes that Afghanistan has created new rules for the internet, saying that ISPs need to start filtering websites that fall under the following categories:

• Alcohol
• Dating/Social Networking
• Gambling
• Pornography

Because it's not easy to properly filter, reports coming out of the country suggest that ISPs are just choosing to block Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, and Twitter outright. It looks like more and more countries are deciding to censor the internet. This may not be a surprise, but it is a little upsetting if you believe in the importance of free expression.

Perhaps Pakistan should just turn off its internet connection? We've already had stories recently about how courts have ordered that both Facebook and YouTube be blocked -- but supposedly both bans had been lifted. Then came the news that there were attempts to put Facebook's founders on trial, potentially for a death sentence, because some users had posted stuff people in Pakistan didn't like. The latest, sent in by Ali, is that a Pakistani court has ordered a whole bunch of popular websites be blocked from access. You may have heard of a few of these: Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, YouTube, Amazon and Hotmail. Who are they missing? Ebay? Twitter? I'm sure those will be blocked soon enough...

You may recall that last month, a Pakistani court ordered that the entire site of Facebook be blocked from the country because a German woman using the site had created an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" page, in response to the recent "threats" against South Park's writers, concerning a recent episode of that show. We thought that was a bit extreme, though we got a surprising number of comments from people in Pakistan who strongly agreed with the ruling, and were rather quick with an insult for anyone who disagreed.

If you thought that was an overreaction, well, then you'll love the latest. Apparently a lawyer is petitioning the court for charges to be brought against three of Facebook's founders, Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. Neither Dustin nor Chris have worked at the company in quite some time. Apparently, the charges could lead to a death penalty request. According to the law:

"Use of derogatory remark etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet, whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine."

I do like how after you are dead, you are then also liable for a fine. Pakistani law enforcement is apparently investigating the "crime," but no charges have yet been filed. However, the lawyer is confident that Zuckerberg and his two former partners will soon be arrested and shipped to Pakistan. I would have to imagine that's not actually going to happen any time soon.

So, just yesterday we wrote about Pakistan's decision to block all of Facebook, because some users had set up a page for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" (in response to the threats made to Comedy Central concerning an episode of South Park). Originally, just that one page had been banned, but apparently that wasn't enough, and a court ordered the entire site should be banned for allowing that sort of content to appear. In response, I asked if Pakistan would ban the internet if a page was put up advocating the same thing. It looks like the country may be trying to ban services one-by-one.

Now it's been announced that Pakistan is blocking access to YouTube over the same issue. Of course, Pakistan tried to block YouTube a few years ago, and it ended up taking down a large chunk of the internet -- so hopefully this time they've come up with a more sophisticated way of doing this. In the meantime, though, I'm still at a loss for how completely banning a site makes sense here, but it appears my original post somehow is being spread around Pakistan, because starting not so long ago there was a sudden rush of comments coming from people in Pakistan, defending the blocking decisions. Given that, how long until Techdirt gets blocked as well?

Remember back in 2008, when Pakistan ordered YouTube to be blocked and took down a chunk of the wider internet outside of Pakistan in the process? One hopes they've got the technical details worked out this time, because Mr. LemurBoy alerts us to the news that the Pakistani High Court is so disturbed by the fact that there's an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" page (hopefully you've already heard why that's controversial...) on Facebook that it has ordered all of Facebook to be blocked through the end of May. Originally, only that specific page had been ordered to be blocked, but apparently that wasn't enough:

Lawyers with the Islamic Lawyers Forum appealed to the higher court on Wednesday, saying the entire site should be blocked because it had allowed the page to be posted in the first place

Of course, that makes me wonder. If someone created a similar webpage just "on the internet," would Pakistan order that all of the internet should be blocked? If it was on a piece of paper, would all paper be blocked from import?

About four years ago, I signed up for AT&T CallVantage VoIP service and ditched my traditional POTS landline phone service. This was back when AT&T was actually betting on CallVantage and using it as a (many reviews claimed) better alternative to Vonage. Then, of course, SBC bought AT&T and wanted nothing whatsoever to do with CallVantage. It neglected the service, and quality got worse and worse until it announced a few months ago that it was shutting the service down completely. Fair enough. I contemplated going strictly with a combination of Skype and my cell phone for phone service, but I've found both to be somewhat unreliable at times -- and for unexplained reasons my new laptop has terrible microphone inputs -- so everyone I've called via Skype insists they can't hear me at all (and I've tried both USB and the mic inputs, and multiple microphones -- no luck).

So, after hearing about some friends who were using it and doing some online research, I decided to try "MagicJack." You may have seen their late night commercials that are hard to avoid (even if you use a DVR). It's basically a much cheaper VoIP option that's not that unlike Vonage/CallVantage, except that instead of getting a VoIP router to hook up to your broadband modem directly, it's just a USB dongle that connects directly to your computer. I read some reviews online, and they all basically said the same thing: when it works, it works great, but don't expect any customer support if things go wrong. And, oh yes, hold your nose at the infomercial sales process and the constant upsell attempts. Still, I figured it was worth a shot and ordered a free trial (you have 30 days). Of course, to get through the process, you have to decline something like 30 upsell attempts (my favorite: $4 to have them ship it faster -- I declined and the thing still showed up in two days).

I've been using it for about a week, and it's not too bad. There are some annoyances, but the call quality works fine. I think there's a slight delay, which gives calls that old long distance pause between people speaking that used to be common, but I can live with that. The actual call quality seems better than my old CallVantage.

But today, MagicJack appears to be breaking the law. Every Friday we have a staff call at Floor64. Since not everyone here works locally or in the office every day, we have a conference call using every startup's favorite: FreeConference.com. So I called in this morning, and MagicJack refused. Instead, it gave me a recording telling me that I needed to use MagicJack's own free conferencing solution. That might be fine for setting up conference calls, but this was a call that was already going on, and which people were waiting for me to dial into. And there was no way to get around it. MagicJack simply refuses to let you call FreeConference.com.

Now, it's not hard to figure out why. This issue cropped up two years ago, when a bunch of small telcos started blocking calls to FreeConference.com, because FreeConference is actually a big regulatory arbitrage scam. MagicJack itself is a CLEC that most likely benefits from some kind of regulatory arbitrage, so it's just another small telco blocking FreeConference to push its own services. But, just because telcos don't like competition, it doesn't mean it's legal for them to block others' services. After widespread complaints in 2007, most telcos backed down and stopped blocking calls to FreeConference, and the FCC started looking into the matter -- though I don't believe it ever came out with a ruling on the matter. I'm pretty sure there are still a smattering of lawsuits out there about the whole thing.

But, considering how many conference call invites I get these days that use FreeConference, it's quite a pain to find out that my own phone line can't dial into it. Other MagicJack users have been discovering the same thing, and MagicJack's customer service response has been hopelessly inept. They just keep repeating that you need to use their own free conferencing service, and if you finally find someone who understands that you're trying to call into someone else's conference they just say sorry, you can't do that.

In the past, of course, the FCC has indicated that it's a violation of federal rules to disallow phone calls to get through just because you don't like the numbers being dialed, and it seems that when you promise people free unlimited local and long distance phone calls throughout the US, then you need to live up to that promise. I'm not sure if I'm going to keep the MagicJack after this trial period, but this is a huge strike against it. Who knows what other numbers they might not let me call next week?

There were a bunch of stories this weekend talking about how Facebook appeared to be blocked in Iran, with many assuming that it was due to upcoming elections, where some reformist candidates have been using the social networking site to build support. Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is apparently claiming that he has nothing to do with it, and that he "believe[s] in maximum freedom of expression," and that he'll "look into" the block. Meanwhile, others are claiming the ban is for moral, rather than political reasons. The reality is probably a bit of both -- with the government being able to use the cover of "morality" to block an effective organizing technique for an opposition candidate. Either way, this action only seems to be calling more attention to the opposition candidate, so if the goal was to stifle his campaign, it might just have backfired.