nanog mailing list archives
Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:43:06 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
When people start to talk about blocking, just say no. It took our politicians in Sweden approx one month to start trying to extend the child porn filtering some large ISPs agreed to implement, to also include trafficking and prostitution advertising.
you could engage the gov't of panama and the local PTT there (cable & wireless) about their experiences in attempting to filter voip traffic... or rather in forcing ISP's there to filter voip for them, to protect the PTT's revenue stream(s). -Chris
Current thread:
- Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking W. Mark Herrick, Jr. (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Sean Donelan (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 28)
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Aaron Glenn (Jun 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Fergie (Paul Ferguson) (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Frank Coluccio (Jun 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Brand X decision could mean widespread VoIP blocking Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 28)
- Message not available