> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote: > > > If someone want to be insane - allow him to do it; what's the problem? Is > > this question coming from Panamian government? -:) > > when you have to comply with some insane gov't ruling at penalty of > legal (possibly felony type actions) you will also squeal like the virtual > pig... To comply with government, it is enough to SHOW blocking - block SIP and H323 standar ports. It is not your concern, if SkyPE can make a tricks.
But I believe, that to comply with anything in Panama you need just to give a $$$, not to set up acll lists. > > > > > This is internet - if I have 10 Mbit connection and 100msec latency, I can > > use it for Voice, no way to block me; if it is 19200bits/second and 2 second > > latency, I can not. That's all. Other methods can provide temporary reliefe > > only. > > > > true, this was the arguement put forth to the folks at the time, they > still insisted on their backwards, telco-minded thinking... Fortunately > after a few months they saw the light and removed the requirement. > > Joe might not be that lucky, or he might be able to show precedent to > others about why it's bad to try to block the voip. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Robert Mathews wrote: > > > > To Joe Shen: > > > > > > > > Perhaps 'I am failing to see it' but, what can be gained by blocking > > VoIP > > > > traffic other than freeing bandwidth and CPU churnings? > > > > > > reference panamanian gov'ts choice to protect legacy/incumbant carrier > > > business by blocking voip. no one said it was 'smart' just that it was > > > what the gov't wanted. Perhaps Joe lives in a similar situation? > >