Techdirt. Stories filed under "voip"

South Korea Gives Mobile Operators Permission To Ignore Net Neutrality By Surcharging Or Blocking VOIP Services

Glyn Moody — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:29:00 PDT

Net neutrality arguments are often couched in rather theoretical terms, and many people can't really see what all the fuss is about. A recent decision in South Korea gives a handy example of what the loss of net neutrality means in practice:

In a move that has critics crying that it is ignoring net neutrality principles, the Korea Communications Commission said last week that it will let three local mobile operators, SK Telecom, KT and LG U+, charge users extra fees for VOIP [voice over IP] applications or block their use entirely.

Among the VOIP services affected is the mobile phone messaging app KakaoTalk, which has a massive following in South Korea: KakaoTalk has 36 million Korean users and 9.2 million international users. More than half of 50 million Korean cell phone owners use smartphones, according to the Korea Communications Commission.
In other words, thanks to this latest ruling, tens of millions of KakaoTalk users in South Korea will either be forced to pay more, or may even find the service blocked completely. It's hard to see why the South Korean telecom authority decided this kind of tilted playing field was a good idea: the only ones to benefit are the mobile operators who get to attack new entrants that threatened to disrupt their market, while huge numbers of Korean citizens will be worse off as a result. You could hardly hope for a better demonstration of why net neutrality matters, and is not some purely theoretical concern.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Here We Go Again: FBI Wants Backdoors To Snoop On Nearly All Internet Communications

Mike Masnick — Mon, 7 May 2012 08:21:00 PDT

On Friday, Declan McCullagh over at News.com had the latest reports of the FBI trying to get new laws in place that would require all kinds of internet communication services to include wiretapping back doors, so that law enforcement could tap into them. This isn't a new idea. The FBI has been calling for this for a long, long time. We had mentioned it just last year, but it goes back much further than that. Basically, the FBI is upset that it can't easily tap certain popular VoIP and social networking communication tools. So it wants to effectively force the tech industry to build back doors into pretty much everything.

It's understandable why the government would want this, but that doesn't mean it makes very much sense. First of all, there will always be ways around such taps, and you can bet that major criminals/terrorists are already figuring out how to use systems that are much more protected. Second, as soon as you open up such backdoors, you have pretty much guaranteed that they're going to be abused. Those with nefarious intent will figure out how to access them as well, and people using these systems will be much more at risk, not just of governments spying on their conversations. Second, it's really an impossible task. All that will happen is more alternatives, which will be decentralized and encrypted end-to-end with no possibility of back doors, will likely pop up. The end result won't make it any easier for the FBI to track down real criminals, but will put plenty of non-criminals at risk. Oh, and it will do this while making things much more expensive for any tech company that wants to let its users communicate. That doesn't seem particularly helpful.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Many Times Will Skype Be Acquired For Too Much Money By Big Tech Companies With Little Strategic Synergies?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 May 2011 05:33:36 PDT

You may recall, back in 2005, that the tech world let out a massive "Huh? when eBay acquired Skype for somewhere around $2.6 billion. eBay kept insisting there were synergies there, and lots of people tried to puzzle out what those might be. Calling people to discuss auctions? Auctions embedded in your phone? There was some vague talk about China, but it amounted to "lots of people use Skype in China," and didn't get much further than that. Just a couple years later, eBay was already writing off the supposed synergies and then gave up looking for the synergies altogether. Not so long ago, it spun the company out, and there were plans for an IPO.

Just a few days ago, there were rumors that both Facebook and Google were considering buying Skype at around $3 or $4 billion. In both cases, you could make out some potential synergies. Facebook has become a huge communications platform, and adding more voice capabilities could be compelling. Google, obviously, has Google Voice and owns Skype-clone Gizmo.

However, at the last minute, it appears that Microsoft swooped in and more than doubled the asking price, paying $8.5 billion. And, we're left with deja vu. It seems we're not the only one asking how this makes sense. It certainly has all the earmarks of a big company with too much cash feeling the need to do something to be considered relevant, especially after hearing that two of the newer darlings in the tech world were considering the buyout themselves.

Are there synergies here that make sense? Well, certainly more than existed with eBay. But enough to make it worth so much more to Microsoft than Facebook or Google? I can't see it. Also, almost everything I can think of where Microsoft might integrate with Skype would likely make the product more annoying and less valuable. And while Skype is definitely a great product -- I use it all the time -- and usage has steadily grown over the years, the company is still having trouble finding profits. $8 billion is a lot to spend on a company that keeps using up the red ink on its income statements.

Perhaps Skype just puts something in the water it serves in conference rooms that makes big tech companies go loopy, increasing how much they're willing to pay and seeing magic synergies where none really exist.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

China May Ban Skype In Misguided Protectionist Effort

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Jan 2011 04:37:06 PST

Back in 2008, we wondered how long it would be until the Chinese government looked to crack down on VoIP providers like Skype, as it was becoming clear that a larger and larger number of folks in China were starting to use Skype for international calls (especially to Taiwan). It appears that may be happening, as the Chinese government has made it clear that it believes most VoIP networks are illegal, and it plans to crack down on them. The reason for such a ban is generally as a protectionist move, helping state sponsored telcos -- who return the favor by letting the government spy on calls (something Skype does not allow). Of course, as we've seen in other countries that have implemented Skype bans, including Bangladesh, Belarus, Jordan and Namibia, the end result of these kinds of bans can be supremely counterproductive for the local economy. It's not hard to realize why: cheap phone calls enable all sorts of other businesses to do things cheaper and open up new possibilities, like overseas call centers. Expensive phone calls make business more expensive and difficult. So, in protecting the local state-supported telcos, these efforts tend to do a lot more harm than good.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Patent Office Says Another 'Worst Patent' Should Be Rejected As Obvious

Mike Masnick — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:05:16 PDT

The latest news in the ongoing effort by the EFF to invalidate ten awful patents looks good, as the Patent Office has given an initial rejection of C2's VoIP patent, claiming that it qualifies as "obvious." The incredibly broad patent (6,243,373) basically covers all VoIP implementations. Of course, this is just the "first office action," which rarely means very much, since the company still has the ability to come back and beg and plead for the USPTO to keep the patent alive (which happens often enough).

Still, it does make you wonder, since it certainly does seem like it was an abundantly obvious patent (yes, even back when it was filed -- someone should talk to Jeff Pulver for some prior art), why it's taken this long for the USPTO to begin to correct its error. While we continue to applaud the EFF for working to get these patents busted, as we mentioned recently, the real travesty is that it's been six years since the EFF began busting patents, and while there's progress on nearly all of the patents, it's an incredible slog -- and these are for the worst of the worst patents. Invalidating bad patents is a ridiculously difficult process. That's really bad, considering all the harm they can do in the meantime.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Egypt Says No More Mobile Skype Calls

Mike Masnick — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:34:50 PDT

Egypt has apparently decided that it doesn't like the idea of people making mobile phone calls that it can't track and/or that the state-owned telco can't make money off of. So it's banning all mobile VoIP calls. Apparently "fixed" VoIP calls are okay, which gets a bit confusing:

"The ban is on Skype on mobile internet, not on fixed, and this is due to the fact it is against the law since it bypasses the legal gateway," said Amr Badawy, the executive president of the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (NTRA).

Under Egyptian law, international calls must pass through a network controlled by majority state-owned Telecom Egypt, which this week reported disappointing earnings.

But what is the difference between the "mobile internet" and the "fixed internet" in real terms? If I use a laptop on a 3G connection... is that fixed or mobile? If I use a mobile phone on a WiFi connection connected to a DSL line, is that fixed or mobile? This just seems like a way to try to boost profits for the state owned telco with arbitrary rules.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Speakeasy The Latest VoIP Provider To Block Certain Calls

Mike Masnick — Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:40:00 PDT

A few weeks back, we noted that VoIP provider MagicJack had begun blocking calls to certain numbers it didn't like -- specifically free conference numbers that were using a regulatory arbitrage loophole that required the networks of incoming calls to certain rural telcos to pay huge connection fees, creating incentives for those telcos to develop cheap or free services that brought in lots of calls. Then, a few weeks ago, it came out that Google was blocking similar calls via its Google Voice offering. I still believe that offering a telephone service that connects to POTS requires that you complete all non-fee-based (i.e., 900 number) calls, according to an FCC order in 2007 on this particular subject. Google and MagicJack disagree.

However, with more and more people switching to VoIP services, combined with more and more VoIP providers going down this route, it's becoming a big issue, quickly. Harold Feld notes that Speakeasy is the latest VoIP provider to go down this route, blocking similar calls. To Speakeasy's credit, however, unlike both MagicJack and Google, it at least clearly alerted customers to this change, and also publicly lists out the blocked numbers. It's amazing that Google and MagicJack did not do either of these things.

Still, as Feld notes, this is becoming a big deal. It's likely that more and more VoIP providers are going to quickly go down this same path, and the phone system will start to splinter. This is bad. For a phone system to work, you shouldn't have a situation where the service you use can arbitrarily refuse to complete certain phone calls. The real answer is to get rid of the arbitrage loopholes. The rural telcos are clearly abusing the rules. Yes, this could seriously curtail various free conference calling solutions, but that's better than the alternative.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Clearwire Supports Net Neutrality? Does No One Remember Its History?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:22:52 PDT

How quickly people forget. With the FCC's announcement about support for net neutrality legislation the PR and lobbying machines of the major telco and cable providers have cranked up, putting out all sorts of fear mongering letters and reports about the damage such a law will do. There was one interesting exception. Some noticed that wireless broadband provider Clearwire appeared to support the FCC's position (though, I'd argue that the statement's wording is a bit vague). While the article at Moconews suggests this "isn't surprising," I'm wondering how everyone seems to have forgotten that Clearwire, in the past, was one of the most aggressive broadband providers to support a non neutral network. A few years back, it was blocking VoIP and streaming media and proudly promised to block any type of traffic or application it didn't like. It also tried to get VoIP providers to get "certified" before promising they could work on Clearwire's network. Of course, plenty can change in a few years, but it's quite noteworthy that Clearwire may have changed its tune on net neutrality entirely.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Skype Tech Licensing Soap Opera Continues: Founders Sue eBay, New Buyers For Copyright Infringement

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:27:32 PDT

Over the summer, we wrote about the bizarre and protracted legal dispute concerning whether or not eBay actually had the rights to the core technology in Skype. Skype's founders, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, claim that they retained the right to the core technology in a separate company called Joltid, and that they terminated eBay's license to that technology. There's a legal battle already underway about that, but apparently that's not enough, as Joltid has now filed a separate copyright infringement lawsuit against eBay and the list of investors who recently bought out a big chunk of Skype from eBay. The thing that still amazes me is that pretty much everyone realized right away that it made no sense for eBay to buy Skype. That was a bad idea from the very beginning. But finding out that the purchase price didn't even include the core technology, and that Joltid had the ability to revoke the license, makes the purchase almost monumentally bad.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Skype Founders Claim eBay No Longer Has A Right To Skype's Core Tech

Mike Masnick — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:45:23 PDT

As you know, eBay bought Skype for a ton of money a few years back, without having any real plan for what to do with it. There were no synergies between the two, and about the best that can be said for eBay's ownership of Skype is that they didn't kill it (though, frankly, the new UI is so bad, it makes me wonder what they were thinking) and let it continue to grow organically. Earlier this year, eBay finally announced plans to spin off Skype. Fair enough. It can probably do a lot more outside of eBay than from within. However, it turns out that there may be a bit of a legal hitch, as Skype's founders claim that eBay/Skype no longer have the legal rights to Skype's underlying technology. Apparently, the claim is that Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis and a separate company they ran, Joltid, only licensed the underlying technology to eBay/Skype for a limited time -- and that deal has now concluded. The two companies are scheduled to fight this out in court.

There are a few interesting asides to all of this. First, it reminds me of how Zennstrom and Friis ended up in another lawsuit a few years back, also involving questions about licensing the core underlying technology of Skype. There's a lot of background here, and not all the details are clear (at all), but that original case involved the claim that Zennstrom and Friis used the same core underlying technology that they used to build Kazaa to build Skype. Way back, Zennstrom and Friis had created two operations: Kazaa and FastTrack, which created the underlying tech used in Kazaa. However, they also licensed FastTrack to a company called Streamcast, that made a product called Morpheus that competed with Kazaa in the file sharing space. Got that?

The folks at Streamcast insist that part of their contract with FastTrack was that they had a right of first refusal on buying the underlying technology. But then, all sorts of stuff happened, with Kazaa being sold off to a group in the South Pacific, but Zennstrom and Friis supposedly retaining some core technology which (Streamcast claims) they used to build Skype. Then, once Skype sold, Streamcast claimed that the whole thing was an elaborate shell game, but in selling the Skype underlying technology, Streamcast claimed that Zennstrom and Friis violated their agreement on having a right of first refusal on purchasing the technology.

Yet, now I'm left wondering if that original claim was true. If the current claim is that Joltid still "owns" the original technology and Skype/eBay only licensed it, then the technology itself might never have actually been sold (unless, we're talking about two separate core underlying technologies... which is possible).

Still... the bigger question? How the hell did eBay make a deal and not make sure it had either purchased (entirely) the core underlying technology or had a guaranteed perpetual license that couldn't be revoked? The eBay Skype purchase was bad enough already. Could it be even more ridiculous in that eBay didn't even properly purchase the technology in question? It seems preposterous to believe that a company could screw up an acquisition that monumentally, so you have to wonder if it's actually true.

In the meantime, since there are questions about how eBay can rebuild Skype's underlying core technology without violating the many patents in the space, it makes you wonder if eBay may be forced to simply buy someone else's technology. Maybe it's time to call up the Gizmo Project (which has built a very Skype-like product) to see what they're up to these days. Though, can you imagine eBay needing to buy another company just to power Skype so it can be spun off again? Yikes!

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Russian Telcos: Skype Is Hurting Our Business And Must Be Stopped

Mike Masnick — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:40:03 PDT

Usually, these days, when companies beg the gov't for protectionist policies against upstart competitors, they at least work out a convoluted story about some sort of real harm (i.e., beyond the bottom line of those asking for protection) caused by the upstart. So, you get the record companies claiming that music will stop being made, or perhaps food companies complaining about the safety standards of foreign food products. There may even be some truth to those stories (or not), but the real reason is to avoid competition. Over in Russia, for example, it appears that a bunch of telco execs are complaining about Skype. They at least try to pass off a plausible non-save-our-asses reason: mentioning security, but they don't do a very good job hiding the truth. Repeatedly they seem to plead that Skype is evil because it makes it difficult for the old guard telcos to charge super high fees. Competition is such a pain sometimes...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

People Will Pay For VoIP Because It's In A Game?

Carlo Longino — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:18:23 PDT

There are plenty of places for people to make free VoIP calls through their PCs these days, while the cost of phone-based VoIP service keeps falling towards zero. Given this, it's a little surprising to see the companies behind some online video games and virtual worlds planning to start charging users to make in-game or in-world calls to other players and users. Apparently Second Life, Everquest and Star Wars Galaxies will soon feature paid calling plans, with the last two even letting "users talk with friends, no matter what Sony game they're playing." Wow, that's a great feature -- and one all those existing VoIP services already have, with the added benefit that they work when their friends aren't playing Sony games, too. So it's hard to imagine the benefits of integrated VoIP calls will justify their use over any of the free solutions for very many users. This sounds somewhat similar to the sort of thinking that was being tossed out by eBay when it bought Skype, talking about all the "synergies" between voice calls and eBay sales, and how the calls would be a huge boon to the company's bottom line. Those synergies, of course, never materialized for eBay. It seems likely they won't materialize for game and virtual world companies, either.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Court Says VoIP Is Not A Telco Service; States Can't Tax It As One

Mike Masnick — Tue, 5 May 2009 01:28:00 PDT

In recent years, various state regulators, desperate to dredge up extra tax income, have targeted VoIP providers, using the infamous "like a duck" test, to say that since they look like a traditional telephone service, they need to pay taxes like one -- despite the fact that they don't make use of the same infrastructure (which is part of the reason why telco services were taxed in the first place). A couple years ago, an appeals court rejected this theory in Minnesota, and now an appeals court has come to the same conclusion in Nebraska, stating that VoIP services, such as Vonage, are not telecom service providers, and thus are not responsible for taxes such as the Universal Service Fund. Of course, this also contradicts some other rulings... so perhaps we'll eventually see this in the Supreme Court as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Want To Get Out Of Your iPhone Contract on T-Mobile Germany? Easy, Just Use Skype

Carlo Longino — Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:21:00 PDT

Skype has gotten some press this week after it announced the availability of a an iPhone client for its service (except in Canada, though, thanks to patent issues). The application only works over WiFi, though, and not the cellular data network. Operators typically say these restrictions are in order to prevent the use of massive amounts of bandwidth and harm network performance for other users; what seems more likely is they're worried that Skype will "steal voice minutes" away from their network. That's a silly belief though, because when users are already paying for a big bundle of minutes, and have unlimited off-peak minutes, and so on, it's not very likely they'll go to the trouble of using Skype for most calls. Perhaps the only ones they'd use such an application for are for calls they weren't going to make through the operator's network anyway -- such as international calls, for which they'd use a cheaper landline, a calling card, or wait until they're in front of a PC. Blocking Skype from working over the mobile network only hurts the operators by putting up a barrier in front of customers, it really doesn't protect any revenues. But no matter, the blocking -- or worse -- goes on. In Germany, where Skype is the top download from the App Store, T-Mobile (the operator which sells the iPhone there) is threatening to terminate the contracts of customers who use Skype on their iPhones, because the contracts prohibit the use of VoIP services. That's a nice touch: play by our rules, or you'll no longer have the privilege of giving us your money. You know, that doesn't sound so bad, because then users are free to take their business elsewhere. Although, as Skype's general counsel points out, every other mobile operator in Germany also bans VoIP.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Things That Won't Get Your Company Through The Recession: Limited, Hard To Use Free VoIP

Carlo Longino — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:23:00 PST

The price of voice calling has long been moving towards zero, making the "cheap phone calls" business model a fairly unattractive one. But, as Om Malik points out, that doesn't stop VoIP startups from traveling down the same path as previous failures by trying to use "free calling" offerings to build a business. The latest is a company called Jaxtr, which is touting a service that allows its users to call each other for free (how original!). But it's not so straightforward: in addition to both people on a call having to be Jaxtr members, the service gives each of them a special local number to call to reach the other person. So instead of just dialing, or clicking on a user in a buddy list, this is the process:

Jaxtr members simply enter the number of the jaxtr member they wish to call. Jaxtr will then give them a local number to reach that person. Once they initiate the call, jaxtr notifies the person they are calling, and will give that person a local number to call, too -- allowing the parties to connect directly. They can then talk for as long as they like, free of any charge from jaxtr. These assigned local phone numbers can also be used again by the same parties on an ongoing basis.

Two points: it still requires members to have their own phone service and make a local call, and, as Om notes, it's the same kludgy approach that's been tried before by other VoIP companies, with little success. Prices of voice calls are falling across the board, making the inconvenience of systems like this a huge barrier for users to overcome when compared to direct-dialing or other voice-calling or voice-chat services. But Om hits the nail on the head when he asks how VoIP companies can make money from free calls. Jaxtr says its plan is to convert free users to paid customers; they should check out how that's fared so far for Skype, even with its tens of millions of users.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Verizon Gets Smacked Down For Its VoIP Patent Suing Spree

Mike Masnick — Tue, 7 Oct 2008 01:47:29 PDT

Verizon was one of the last players to the VoIP party. Cable companies had been offering VoIP for years, and then Vonage, AT&T and a variety of other startups really built the market before Verizon even bothered to enter the space with an overpriced, uninspiring "me too" product that the market made clear it didn't want. Yet, somehow, Verizon was able to get some patents on the technology, despite a ton of rather clear prior art that showed Verizon's patents should never have been granted.

So, with those patents, Verizon began suing -- and it started with the lame duck in the VoIP space: Vonage. The company has been struggling for a variety of reasons, and a bunch of patent holders swept in to sue the firm that actually made VoIP a viable product in the market. Vonage came under massive pressure from shareholders to get rid of these lawsuits, so it settled rather than deal with a lengthy court room battle.

Verizon interpreted this as a validation of its patents and set off to find others to sue. Its next target was Cox Cable for its digital telephony solution. The plan was clear. After beating Cox, it would turn its legal guns on the big boys like Comcast and Time Warner. Except, it appears the courts have tossed a wrench into those plans by siding with Cox in pointing out that the company doesn't violate Verizon's patents. While Verizon will most likely appeal, this should be seen as a pretty big win for Time Warner Cable and Comcast, who may not even have to defend themselves against Verizon's questionable patent claims at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

German Court Bans VoIP On The iPhone; Says It's Unfair

Mike Masnick — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:44:00 PDT

We've pointed to a bunch of stories that involved Apple somewhat arbitrarily forbidding or banning iPhone apps, but now it appears that the courts are getting in on the game as well. A German court has banned a VoIP iPhone app after T-Mobile, the mobile operator who offers the iPhone in Germany, complained. The court says that this VoIP app "makes use of unfair business practices," though it's difficult to see how. VoIP is a perfectly acceptable application, so why is it unfair? The court's explanation here seems a bit stretched as well. Apparently, the only way to run this particular VoIP app is on a jailbroken iPhone, and T-Mobile's contract forbids jailbreaking the phone. Of course, if that's true, isn't it an issue between T-Mobile and its customers who broke the contract? Why should the app maker be blamed? All it did was build a useful app? This seems like yet another case where a company is arguing that interference with a business model should be illegal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Voice Is Data: Tech Won't Be Able To Stop VoIP In The Air

Mike Masnick — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:22:00 PDT

With increasing attempts to turn internet access on in the sky, there's been some concern about people making VoIP calls from airplanes, just as there is a concern over mobile phone use in the sky being too "annoying." Some of the companies providing internet-in-the-sky have claimed that they would block VoIP calls, but that's going to be pretty difficult. As we've pointed out in the past voice is just data and you can always find a way to disguise the data, such that it won't be blocked. And, indeed, that seems to be exactly what's happening. Andy Abramson talks about how he got around AirCell's VoIP blocking when talking to a friend who was on one of these wired airplanes. There's always going to be away around those things, so unless Congress really decides to ban all voice calls on phones, why not wait and see if people chatting really is a problem?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Forget Credit Cards, Scammers Now Want Your VoIP Accounts?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:18:00 PDT

Last month, we pointed out that the market for stolen credit card data was so saturated that prices were falling. Of course, that just inspired scammers to go looking for other types of data that was a bit harder to find: VoIP accounts. According to the BBC, scammers selling VoIP account info are now able to get higher prices than those selling credit card data. Of course, it's not at all clear how widespread this really is. The info seems to be coming from a company trying to sell a solution to deal with this -- which already makes it somewhat suspect. Also, you have to wonder how valuable VoIP account data really can be compared to credit card numbers which have much wider applicability. Either way, it will be interesting to see how the market deals with the "glut" of credit card data out there, and where else data scammers turn.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Will Self-Control Work For In-Flight Internet Access?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 12 May 2008 06:55:00 PDT

With in-flight internet access getting closer and closer to reality for many airlines, there are still plenty of questions about etiquette and acceptable behaviors. Some airlines are purposely setting up content filters and blocking the use of VoIP (as much as possible, since it's possible to get around most blocks), but as Broadband Reports points out, some believe that people will self-regulate, in most cases. People surfing porn at open WiFi hotspots hasn't been a huge issue, because people know that others are around and so they have enough self-control. The same should be true on airplanes. And while we all know people who are oblivious to how rude it is to hold a loud mobile phone conversation in public, a few reminders and social cues may be enough to keep that from being a serious problem in the air. There will be exceptions -- but is trying to eliminate those few exceptions worth having a near total ban on certain activities?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Chinese Going Off The Official Telco System To Call Taiwan

Mike Masnick — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:09:41 PDT

Paul Kedrosky points us to the news that, for the first time in 11 years, the "official" volume of phone calls from China to Taiwan has dropped rather significantly. Both the Digitimes report and Kedrosky suspect (reasonably) that this shows how many Chinese are jumping to use services like Skype to make these calls. Skype has long had a popular following in China, so this shouldn't be a huge surprise -- but it does make you wonder if the Chinese government will follow the path of various countries like Bangladesh, Belarus, Namibia and Jordan in banning Skype. We've already seen some experiments in China with blocking or banning certain types of calls. If the government feels that too many people are using these services, don't be surprised to see a wider ban enacted.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Net2Phone Jumps Into The VoIP Patent Lawsuit Business: Sues Skype

Mike Masnick — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:09:00 PST

In the last year, we've witnessed plenty of companies dig up VoIP patents with which to sue market innovator Vonage. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and Nortel all were able to get Vonage to cough up some money, rather than continue to fight some questionable patents. The fact that there are so many overlapping patents, is exactly the "patent thicket" problem that our current patent system encourages. Of course, there are always more patents to choose from, and it appears that Net2Phone has dug out an old patent and decided not to sue Vonage, but to go after Skype instead. Unfortunately, there's very little in the way of detail. The ZDNet post just claims it happened, but doesn't give any details about the actual lawsuit (even where it's been filed). Also, the writer seems amazed that it's based on a patent filed in 2000, even though it's common enough to see old patents used in patent lawsuits. In this case, it's absolutely true that Net2Phone was an early pioneer in the VoIP space, but saw its business eclipsed when it had trouble coming up with a product people actually wanted to use (and then watched as providers like Skype passed them by). If anything, this seems like yet another example of those who lost in the marketplace punishing those who innovated better. Skype came up with a good product that people wanted to use. Net2Phone did not. It's hard to see why Skype should be punished for doing a better job serving the market.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

German Government Struggles To Tap Encrypted Skype Calls

Timothy Lee — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:24:00 PST

The Wikileaks project is starting to bear fruit, with documents leaked to the site beginning to get a lot of attention. The latest example is correspondence between the German government and a vendor (via Slashdot) that apparently makes software for intercepting Skype calls. Interestingly, the interception technology appears to be pretty primitive and rather expensive. The software has to be installed on the Skype client, and the vendor suggests that this can be accomplished by attaching a trojan to an e-mail or physically entering the premises to install the software on the target machine. And, evidently, only Windows 2000 and XP are supported; Vista support is still in the works. The company charges thousands of euros per target computer. This suggests that Skype's encryption technology is secure against at least the eavesdropping techniques available to the German government. Apparently they haven't found a way to decode encrypted Skype traffic off the wire, so they're forced to resort to these fairly cumbersome attacks on Skype clients -- attacks that are no more convenient for law enforcement than simply bugging the target's office. That suggests that the risk of comprehensive government surveillance of online telephony is still a fair ways off. If you encrypt your online activities, they're probably pretty secure. Of course, it's entirely possible that other government agencies, such as the NSA, have more sophisticated eavesdropping technology that they haven't shared with the Germans. My guess is that any government agencies possessing really sophisticated eavesdropping tools are also less likely to have their private documents show up on Wikileaks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sprint Shoots For Patent Litigation Rather Than Innovation

Mike Masnick — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:21:00 PST

We've noticed a certain pattern among tech companies once they run into business problems. Rather than figuring out how to improve their product by innovating, they resort to patent litigation. It's an all too common practice, unfortunately -- and can be a sign of how strongly a company believes in its own ability to actually innovate. Perhaps the latest to follow this unfortunate trend is Sprint. Sprint is clearly facing a number of problems in its effort to innovate out of trouble, so it probably will come as no surprise that it's now going after a bunch of small companies for patent infringement, concerning the same VoIP patents it used to squeeze money out of Vonage. Just as Verizon did with its Vonage patent windfall, Sprint has decided to turn around and sue more companies. Though, unlike Verizon, Sprint is focusing on smaller players who probably have even fewer resources to defend themselves, making them more likely to quickly settle, rather than deal with the cost and uncertainty of a lengthy patent lawsuit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Will VoIP Finally Get Hacked?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:32:00 PST

Ever since VoIP first came on the scene, there were fear mongering reports saying that you shouldn't use VoIP because it will get hacked. However, in all these years, we've yet to hear a serious report of VoIP getting hacked -- and, even the scary warnings about VoIP hackers have quieted down. Yet, here we are, with a security company now claiming that 2008 will be the year that VoIP gets hacked. Of course, that security company is also selling a solution to prevent VoIP systems from getting hacked, so perhaps you should take the prediction with a rather large grain of salt. So which is it: is hacking VoIP networks not that easy? Is the fear overblown? Or have we just been lucky?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story