Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
(ISPAK)
No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK
15 June 2009
Mr. Kamran Ali
Director General
(Law & Regulations)
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
Islamabad
Subject Voice over bandwidth of ISPs
Dear Sir,
With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4 June 2009 to all ISPs, we'd like to submit as under:
i. ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer's circuits. PTA has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.
ii. ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent, i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.
iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action can only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing customer details PTA.
iv. Due to PTA's indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in recent past.
v. PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?
2. In view of above, we'd request you to kindly withdraw the above mentioned letter.
With kind regards.
Yours truly,
Wahaj us Siraj
Convener
c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
Chairman PTA, Islamabad
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT, Islamabad
> Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
> (ISPAK)
> No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK
> 15 June 2009
> *Mr. Kamran Ali*
> Director General
> (Law & Regulations)
> Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
> *Islamabad *
> Subject *Voice over bandwidth of ISPs*
> Dear Sir,
> With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4 June
> 2009 to all ISPs, we’d like to submit as under:
> 1. ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer’s circuits. PTA
> has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of
> such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.
> 1. ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA
> provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due
> to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent,
> i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due
> to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.
> 1. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP
> as they don’t have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal
> activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs’ action can
> only be limited to locking of that customer’s account and providing customer
> details PTA.
> 1. Due to PTA’s indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet
> gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly
> suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in
> recent past.
> 1. PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly
> involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?
> 2. In view of above, we’d request you to kindly withdraw the above
> mentioned letter.
> With kind regards.
> Yours truly,
> *Wahaj us Siraj*
> Convener
> c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of
> Pakistan, Islamabad.
> Chairman PTA, Islamabad
> Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT,
> Islamabad
I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP traffic. Why
cannot they accept it?
After looking at the taxation on telecom and this VoIP, then some other
stupid regulations by PTA, I conclude with the fact that Pakistani policy
makers have accepted it as a fact that they cannot earn on volume. Volume of
traffic haunts them, they only are concerned with getting revenue from
anywhere it comes from. It is definitely very discouraging for business
activity. Look at India, things are totally different. They fly for less
than half the price from UK to India though its a longer flight, indians pay
less for telecommunications than us. Now, they've come up with a regulation
for imposing 20 paisas per SMS, well 1 or 2 paisas wouldn't have bothered
but 20 paisas is too big a figure when operators are offering packages for
as low as 1 paisa per text.
I do not understand this. They can generate so much employment, revenue, GDP
growth by earning on volume, but they are apparently not confident of their
revenue collection system. So, let the 'awam' pay for that!
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that is a very sane and pragmatic reply to PTA. Bravo!
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Wahaj us Siraj/MGMT <wa...@dsl.net.pk>wrote:
>> Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
>> (ISPAK)
>> No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK
>> 15 June 2009
>> *Mr. Kamran Ali*
>> Director General
>> (Law & Regulations)
>> Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
>> *Islamabad *
>> Subject *Voice over bandwidth of ISPs*
>> Dear Sir,
>> With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4
>> June 2009 to all ISPs, we’d like to submit as under:
>> 1. ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer’s circuits. PTA
>> has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of
>> such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.
>> 1. ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA
>> provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due
>> to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent,
>> i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due
>> to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.
>> 1. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP
>> as they don’t have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal
>> activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs’ action can
>> only be limited to locking of that customer’s account and providing customer
>> details PTA.
>> 1. Due to PTA’s indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet
>> gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly
>> suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in
>> recent past.
>> 1. PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly
>> involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?
>> 2. In view of above, we’d request you to kindly withdraw the above
>> mentioned letter.
>> With kind regards.
>> Yours truly,
>> *Wahaj us Siraj*
>> Convener
>> c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of
>> Pakistan, Islamabad.
>> Chairman PTA, Islamabad
>> Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT,
>> Islamabad
-- Sheikh Usman N.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you,
then you win"
-Gandhi
> Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
> (ISPAK)
> No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK
> 15 June 2009
> Mr. Kamran Ali
> Director General
> (Law & Regulations)
> Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
> Islamabad
> Subject Voice over bandwidth of ISPs
> Dear Sir,
> With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4 June
> 2009 to all ISPs, we'd like to submit as under:
> i. ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer's circuits. PTA
> has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of
> such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.
> ii. ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA
> provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due
> to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent,
> i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due
> to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.
> iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP
> as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal
> activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action can
> only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing customer
> details PTA.
> iv. Due to PTA's indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet
> gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly
> suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in
> recent past.
> v. PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly
> involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?
> 2. In view of above, we'd request you to kindly withdraw the above
> mentioned letter.
> With kind regards.
> Yours truly,
> Wahaj us Siraj
> Convener
> c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of
> Pakistan, Islamabad.
> Chairman PTA, Islamabad
> Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT,
> Islamabad
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM, AdnanShafiq <adnanchaudhar...@gmail.com>wrote:
> daring and exact! to the point, hit on the head, this might would wake > them
Wahaj Sb has been known to tackle the policy makers by the proverbial horns most of the time. Will the they actually listen to what he is saying is sadly a different story. The role of PTA has been very protectionist towards the LDIs at the cost of other players in industry. I don't want to sound pessimistic but the kind of revenues generated by LDIs and 3 major LDI operators also competing in the ISP market is making it extremely tough for the "traditional" ISPs to survive.
----- Original Message ----- From: Sheikh Usman N. To: telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to block illegal VOIP
I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP traffic. Why cannot they accept it?
I think pta has given some determination in this respect somewhere in 2005 that isp will not be responsible. Do someone have idea.
BR
Umair
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:06:00 To: Telecom Grid Pakistan<telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to block illegal VOIP
daring and exact! to the point, hit on the head, this might would wake
them
On Jun 15, 8:18 am, "Wahaj us Siraj/MGMT" <wa...@dsl.net.pk> wrote:
> Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
> (ISPAK)
> No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK
> 15 June 2009
> Mr. Kamran Ali
> Director General
> (Law & Regulations)
> Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
> Islamabad
> Subject Voice over bandwidth of ISPs
> Dear Sir,
> With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4 June
> 2009 to all ISPs, we'd like to submit as under:
> i. ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer's circuits. PTA
> has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of
> such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.
> ii. ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA
> provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due
> to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent,
> i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due
> to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.
> iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP
> as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal
> activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action can
> only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing customer
> details PTA.
> iv. Due to PTA's indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet
> gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly
> suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in
> recent past.
> v. PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly
> involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?
> 2. In view of above, we'd request you to kindly withdraw the above
> mentioned letter.
> With kind regards.
> Yours truly,
> Wahaj us Siraj
> Convener
> c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of
> Pakistan, Islamabad.
> Chairman PTA, Islamabad
> Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT,
> Islamabad
In this financial crisis time, such orders make things more
difficult.
Still the term "Illegal VOIP" is vaguely defined and why VOIP should
be blocked at the first stage.
Even if PTA is going to do it, then at what factors and protocol
( course of action) will they follow. What about their false alarms,
will there b any consumer rights? will PTA be held for those losses
occured?
On Jun 15, 9:39 am, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that is a very sane and pragmatic reply to PTA. Bravo!
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Wahaj us Siraj/MGMT <wa...@dsl.net.pk>wrote:
> > Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
> > (ISPAK)
> > No. 2(3)/2007-ISPAK
> > 15 June 2009
> > *Mr. Kamran Ali*
> > Director General
> > (Law & Regulations)
> > Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
> > *Islamabad *
> > Subject *Voice over bandwidth of ISPs*
> > Dear Sir,
> > With reference to your letter No. 14-1/L&R/PTA/771 dated 4 June
> > 2009 to all ISPs, we’d like to submit as under:
> > 1. ISPs have no mechanism to detect VoIP on customer’s circuits. PTA
> > has invested a huge amount of operators contribution for installation of
> > such a facility and this matter has therefore to be tackled by PTA itself.
> > 1. ISPs can install the VoIP monitoring and mitigating facility if PTA
> > provides funding for such a facility as the industry is already in debt due
> > to selling below the costs and anti competitive practices of the incumbent,
> > i.e., PTCL. These practices have so far gone unchecked by the regulator due
> > to non-regulation of broadband Internet tariffs.
> > 1. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing illegal VoIP
> > as they don’t have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of illegal
> > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs’ action can
> > only be limited to locking of that customer’s account and providing customer
> > details PTA.
> > 1. Due to PTA’s indiscriminatory blocking the IP addresses on Internet
> > gateways without any notification and evidence, ISPs have been greatly
> > suffering and that has been brought to the notice of PTA many times in
> > recent past.
> > 1. PTA needs to clarify that if a customer of an ISP is supposedly
> > involved in illegal VoIP, how ISP can be held responsible for such matter?
> > 2. In view of above, we’d request you to kindly withdraw the above
> > mentioned letter.
> > With kind regards.
> > Yours truly,
> > *Wahaj us Siraj*
> > Convener
> > c.c. Mr. Naguib ullah Malik, Secretary, Ministry of IT, Government of
> > Pakistan, Islamabad.
> > Chairman PTA, Islamabad
> > Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti, Member Telecom, Ministry of IT,
> > Islamabad- Hide quoted text -
Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only way
terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell phones
in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client misuses the
> service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sheikh Usman N. <usman.nad...@gmail.com>
> *To:* telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to
> block illegal VOIP
> I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP traffic. Why
> cannot they accept it?
-- Sheikh Usman N.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you,
then you win"
-Gandhi
3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
says :-
"iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
illegal VoIP
as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
illegal
activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
can
only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
customer
details PTA."
here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
regards
Rao Khan nethawk
On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only way
> terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell phones
> in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client misuses the
> > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Sheikh Usman N. <usman.nad...@gmail.com>
> > *To:* telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to
> > block illegal VOIP
> > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP traffic. Why
> > cannot they accept it?
> --
> Sheikh Usman N.
> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you,
> then you win"
> -Gandhi
PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international call
centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
blocking thousands of IPs so far.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> says :-
> "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> illegal VoIP
> as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> illegal
> activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> can
> only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> customer
> details PTA."
> here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
> matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
> sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
> such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
> is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> regards
> Rao Khan nethawk
> On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @Sameer
> > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only way
> > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
> phones
> > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
> > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client misuses the
> > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Sheikh Usman N. <usman.nad...@gmail.com>
> > > *To:* telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com
> > > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to
> > > block illegal VOIP
> > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP traffic. Why
> > > cannot they accept it?
> > --
> > Sheikh Usman N.
> > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you,
> > then you win"
> > -Gandhi
-- Sheikh Usman N.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you,
then you win"
-Gandhi
> PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
> traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international call
> centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
> blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
> blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> > says :-
> > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> > illegal VoIP
> > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> > illegal
> > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> > can
> > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> > customer
> > details PTA."
> > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
> > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
> > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
> > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
> > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > regards
> > Rao Khan nethawk
> > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > @Sameer
> > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only way
> > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
> > phones
> > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Update:
> > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
> > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international
> call
> > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
> > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
> > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> > > says :-
> > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> > > illegal VoIP
> > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> > > illegal
> > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> > > can
> > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> > > customer
> > > details PTA."
> > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
> > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
> > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
> > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
> > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > > regards
> > > Rao Khan nethawk
> > > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > @Sameer
> > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only
> way
> > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
> > > phones
> > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
No, but they seem to rubbish the idea that software is very expensive and
PTA needs to provide it. Apparently, they mean to say that ISPs are not
bothered about illegal activity in their networks and they are even
protecting it.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Update:
> > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
> > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international
> call
> > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
> > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
> > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> > > says :-
> > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> > > illegal VoIP
> > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> > > illegal
> > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> > > can
> > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> > > customer
> > > details PTA."
> > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
> > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
> > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
> > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
> > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > > regards
> > > Rao Khan nethawk
> > > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > @Sameer
> > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only
> way
> > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
> > > phones
> > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
> Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just the
> previous letter we got through this mail thread?
> Regards,
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
>> On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Update:
>> > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
>> > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international
>> call
>> > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
>> > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
>> > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
>> > > says :-
>> > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
>> > > illegal VoIP
>> > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
>> > > illegal
>> > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
>> > > can
>> > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
>> > > customer
>> > > details PTA."
>> > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
>> > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
>> > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
>> > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
>> > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
>> > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
>> > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
>> > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
>> > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
>> > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
>> > > regards
>> > > Rao Khan nethawk
>> > > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > @Sameer
>> > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
>> > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only
>> way
>> > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
>> > > phones
>> > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
>> > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
>> > > > > "
>> > > > > Army telecom firm denies connection in Mumbai attacks<
Will they ever learn what is the difference between ISP and ITSP
(Internet Telephony Service Provider). ISP are responsible for
bandwidth and ITSP provide VoIP over bandwidth.
Why don't PTA issue a warning to WAPDA that they should not provide
electricity to grey telephony provider.
here WAPDA = ISP
solved?
regards,
Rao Khan \
nethawk
On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just the
> previous letter we got through this mail thread?
> Regards,
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> > On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Update:
> > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
> > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international
> > call
> > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
> > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
> > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> > > > says :-
> > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> > > > illegal VoIP
> > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> > > > illegal
> > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> > > > can
> > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> > > > customer
> > > > details PTA."
> > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
> > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
> > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
> > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
> > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > > > regards
> > > > Rao Khan nethawk
> > > > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > @Sameer
> > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only
> > way
> > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
> > > > phones
> > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
here WAPDA = ISP
issue solved?
regards.
Rao
Nethawk
On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just the
> previous letter we got through this mail thread?
> Regards,
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> > On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Update:
> > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block 'gray
> > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the international
> > call
> > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not get
> > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month by
> > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> > > > says :-
> > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> > > > illegal VoIP
> > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> > > > illegal
> > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs' action
> > > > can
> > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> > > > customer
> > > > details PTA."
> > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for that
> > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in some
> > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can ask
> > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and ISP
> > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > > > regards
> > > > Rao Khan nethawk
> > > > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > @Sameer
> > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be an
> > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the only
> > way
> > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use cell
> > > > phones
> > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <samee...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he comes
from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if you ask
me).
PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously look at
the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k can't we
- the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or PTA
guidelines?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
> here WAPDA = ISP
> issue solved?
> regards.
> Rao
> Nethawk
> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just the
> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
> > Regards,
> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> > > On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Update:
> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block
> 'gray
> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
> international
> > > call
> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not
> get
> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a month
> by
> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
> sheri...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as it
> > > > > says :-
> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> > > > > illegal VoIP
> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> > > > > illegal
> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs'
> action
> > > > > can
> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and providing
> > > > > customer
> > > > > details PTA."
> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for
> that
> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in
> some
> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect its
> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not pass
> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can
> ask
> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and
> ISP
> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be
> an
> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the
> only
> > > way
> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use
> cell
> > > > > phones
> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <
> samee...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client
> misuses
> > > the
> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > *From:* Sheikh Usman N. <usman.nad...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > *To:* telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
> > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to
> > > ISPs to
> > > > > > > block illegal VOIP
> > > > > > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP
> traffic.
> > > Why
> > > > > > > cannot they accept it?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sheikh Usman N.
> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight
> with
> > > you,
> > > > > > then you win"
> > > > > > -Gandhi
> > > > --
> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with
> you,
> > > > then you win"
> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
> Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he comes
> from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if you ask
> me).
> PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously look at
> the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
> Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k can't we
> - the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or PTA
> guidelines?
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
>> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
>> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
>> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
>> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
>> here WAPDA = ISP
>> issue solved?
>> regards.
>> Rao
>> Nethawk
>> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just the
>> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
>> > Regards,
>> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
>> > > On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Update:
>> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block
>> 'gray
>> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
>> international
>> > > call
>> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not
>> get
>> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a
>> > > > month
>> by
>> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
>> sheri...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > says :-
>> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
>> > > > > illegal VoIP
>> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
>> > > > > illegal
>> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs'
>> action
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and
>> > > > > providing
>> > > > > customer
>> > > > > details PTA."
>> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for
>> that
>> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in
>> some
>> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect
>> > > > > its
>> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not
>> > > > > pass
>> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
>> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can
>> ask
>> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and
>> ISP
>> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
>> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
>> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
>> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be
>> an
>> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the
>> only
>> > > way
>> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use
>> cell
>> > > > > phones
>> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
>> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
>> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <
>> samee...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
>> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client
>> misuses
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
>> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > *From:* Sheikh Usman N. <usman.nad...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > *To:* telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com
>> > > > > > > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
>> > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > ISPs to
>> > > > > > > block illegal VOIP
>> > > > > > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP
>> traffic.
>> > > Why
>> > > > > > > cannot they accept it?
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Sheikh Usman N.
>> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight
>> with
>> > > you,
>> > > > > > then you win"
>> > > > > > -Gandhi
>> > > > --
>> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
>> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with
>> you,
>> > > > then you win"
>> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
> I 2nd this WHY is voip illegal? Price it to me via their web site as a
> citizen of this country what it is doing to hurt my country please.
> Why can I be put in jail for using skype which the rest of the
> educated world do so?
> On 6/19/09, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he comes
> > from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if you ask
> > me).
> > PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously look at
> > the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
> > Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k can't we
> > - the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or PTA
> > guidelines?
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
> >> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
> >> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
> >> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
> >> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
> >> here WAPDA = ISP
> >> issue solved?
> >> regards.
> >> Rao
> >> Nethawk
> >> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just the
> >> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> >> > > On Jun 18, 8:56 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Update:
> >> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to block
> >> 'gray
> >> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
> >> international
> >> > > call
> >> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do not
> >> get
> >> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a
> >> > > > month
> >> by
> >> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> >> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
> >> sheri...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer as
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > says :-
> >> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer doing
> >> > > > > illegal VoIP
> >> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs of
> >> > > > > illegal
> >> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs'
> >> action
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and
> >> > > > > providing
> >> > > > > customer
> >> > > > > details PTA."
> >> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally for
> >> that
> >> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are in
> >> some
> >> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must respect
> >> > > > > its
> >> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not
> >> > > > > pass
> >> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> >> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly can
> >> ask
> >> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court and
> >> ISP
> >> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take such
> >> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> >> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> >> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might be
> >> an
> >> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP the
> >> only
> >> > > way
> >> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they use
> >> cell
> >> > > > > phones
> >> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> >> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Sameer Bokhari <
> >> samee...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > could this possibly be one of the reasons..?
> >> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client
> >> misuses
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
> >> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > > > *From:* Sheikh Usman N. <usman.nad...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > *To:* telecom-grid-pakistan@googlegroups.com
> >> > > > > > > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
> >> > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > ISPs to
> >> > > > > > > block illegal VOIP
> >> > > > > > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP
> >> traffic.
> >> > > Why
> >> > > > > > > cannot they accept it?
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Sheikh Usman N.
> >> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight
> >> with
> >> > > you,
> >> > > > > > then you win"
> >> > > > > > -Gandhi
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
> >> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with
> >> you,
> >> > > > then you win"
> >> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
Last year we were paying 2 cents per minute to make calls to Pakistan and 5
cents to Indian . Now its totally opposite .
Now you can pay 1 cent to make calls to Indian and 13 cents to 15 cents for
Pakistan calls. So its so expensive to make calls to Pakistan . This is the
reason that every one looking around for some tricks or service to make
cheap calls to Pakistan.
Why not they can allow VOIP as legal and generate more revenue from voip
companies.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Necessity is mother of all inventions.
> who invented illegal VoIP?
> I think PTA should concentrate on lower rates of Pakistani outside
> who call in country.
> regards,
> Rao
> On Jun 19, 2:00 am, Rehan Allahwala <Re...@supertec.com> wrote:
> > I 2nd this WHY is voip illegal? Price it to me via their web site as a
> > citizen of this country what it is doing to hurt my country please.
> > Why can I be put in jail for using skype which the rest of the
> > educated world do so?
> > On 6/19/09, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he
> comes
> > > from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if you
> ask
> > > me).
> > > PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously
> look at
> > > the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
> > > Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k
> can't we
> > > - the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or
> PTA
> > > guidelines?
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
> > >> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
> > >> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
> > >> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
> > >> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
> > >> here WAPDA = ISP
> > >> issue solved?
> > >> regards.
> > >> Rao
> > >> Nethawk
> > >> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its just
> the
> > >> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
> > >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
> > >> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to
> block
> > >> 'gray
> > >> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
> > >> international
> > >> > > call
> > >> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they do
> not
> > >> get
> > >> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a
> > >> > > > month
> > >> by
> > >> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
> > >> sheri...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer
> as
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > says :-
> > >> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer
> doing
> > >> > > > > illegal VoIP
> > >> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs
> of
> > >> > > > > illegal
> > >> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs'
> > >> action
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and
> > >> > > > > providing
> > >> > > > > customer
> > >> > > > > details PTA."
> > >> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally
> for
> > >> that
> > >> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer are
> in
> > >> some
> > >> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must
> respect
> > >> > > > > its
> > >> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should not
> > >> > > > > pass
> > >> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
> > >> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly
> can
> > >> ask
> > >> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court
> and
> > >> ISP
> > >> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take
> such
> > >> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
> > >> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
> > >> > > > > regards
> > >> > > > > Rao Khan nethawk
> > >> > > > > On Jun 15, 6:51 am, "Sheikh Usman N." <usman.nad...@gmail.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > @Sameer
> > >> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It might
> be
> > >> an
> > >> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP
> the
> > >> only
> > >> > > way
> > >> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they
> use
> > >> cell
> > >> > > > > phones
> > >> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
> > >> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
> > >> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a
> client
> > >> misuses
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
> > >> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they
> fight
> > >> with
> > >> > > you,
> > >> > > > > > then you win"
> > >> > > > > > -Gandhi
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
> > >> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight
> with
> > >> you,
> > >> > > > then you win"
> > >> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM, SYED ZAIDI <naja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> Last year we were paying 2 cents per minute to make calls to Pakistan and 5
> cents to Indian . Now its totally opposite .
> Now you can pay 1 cent to make calls to Indian and 13 cents to 15 cents
> for Pakistan calls. So its so expensive to make calls to Pakistan . This is
> the reason that every one looking around for some tricks or service to make
> cheap calls to Pakistan.
> Why not they can allow VOIP as legal and generate more revenue from voip
> companies.
> Thanks
> Syed
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Necessity is mother of all inventions.
>> who invented illegal VoIP?
>> I think PTA should concentrate on lower rates of Pakistani outside
>> who call in country.
>> regards,
>> Rao
>> On Jun 19, 2:00 am, Rehan Allahwala <Re...@supertec.com> wrote:
>> > I 2nd this WHY is voip illegal? Price it to me via their web site as a
>> > citizen of this country what it is doing to hurt my country please.
>> > Why can I be put in jail for using skype which the rest of the
>> > educated world do so?
>> > On 6/19/09, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he
>> comes
>> > > from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if
>> you ask
>> > > me).
>> > > PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously
>> look at
>> > > the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
>> > > Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k
>> can't we
>> > > - the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or
>> PTA
>> > > guidelines?
>> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
>> > >> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
>> > >> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
>> > >> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
>> > >> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
>> > >> here WAPDA = ISP
>> > >> issue solved?
>> > >> regards.
>> > >> Rao
>> > >> Nethawk
>> > >> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its
>> just the
>> > >> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
>> > >> > Regards,
>> > >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> > >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
>> > >> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to
>> block
>> > >> 'gray
>> > >> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
>> > >> international
>> > >> > > call
>> > >> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they
>> do not
>> > >> get
>> > >> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a
>> > >> > > > month
>> > >> by
>> > >> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
>> > >> sheri...@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer
>> as
>> > >> > > > > it
>> > >> > > > > says :-
>> > >> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer
>> doing
>> > >> > > > > illegal VoIP
>> > >> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs
>> of
>> > >> > > > > illegal
>> > >> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs'
>> > >> action
>> > >> > > > > can
>> > >> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and
>> > >> > > > > providing
>> > >> > > > > customer
>> > >> > > > > details PTA."
>> > >> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally
>> for
>> > >> that
>> > >> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer
>> are in
>> > >> some
>> > >> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must
>> respect
>> > >> > > > > its
>> > >> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should
>> not
>> > >> > > > > pass
>> > >> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
>> > >> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly
>> can
>> > >> ask
>> > >> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court
>> and
>> > >> ISP
>> > >> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take
>> such
>> > >> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
>> > >> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
>> > >> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It
>> might be
>> > >> an
>> > >> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP
>> the
>> > >> only
>> > >> > > way
>> > >> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they
>> use
>> > >> cell
>> > >> > > > > phones
>> > >> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
>> > >> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
>> > >> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a
>> client
>> > >> misuses
>> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
>> > >> > > > > > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP
>> > >> traffic.
>> > >> > > Why
>> > >> > > > > > > cannot they accept it?
>> > >> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they
>> fight
>> > >> with
>> > >> > > you,
>> > >> > > > > > then you win"
>> > >> > > > > > -Gandhi
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
>> > >> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight
>> with
>> > >> you,
>> > >> > > > then you win"
>> > >> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
The increase in tariff is because the security situation in the country is
worse now. Every voice frame that needs to be routed through switches in the
country is at risk from extremist elements.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, SYED ZAIDI <naja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> Last year we were paying 2 cents per minute to make calls to Pakistan and 5
> cents to Indian . Now its totally opposite .
> Now you can pay 1 cent to make calls to Indian and 13 cents to 15 cents
> for Pakistan calls. So its so expensive to make calls to Pakistan . This is
> the reason that every one looking around for some tricks or service to make
> cheap calls to Pakistan.
> Why not they can allow VOIP as legal and generate more revenue from voip
> companies.
> Thanks
> Syed
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Necessity is mother of all inventions.
>> who invented illegal VoIP?
>> I think PTA should concentrate on lower rates of Pakistani outside
>> who call in country.
>> regards,
>> Rao
>> On Jun 19, 2:00 am, Rehan Allahwala <Re...@supertec.com> wrote:
>> > I 2nd this WHY is voip illegal? Price it to me via their web site as a
>> > citizen of this country what it is doing to hurt my country please.
>> > Why can I be put in jail for using skype which the rest of the
>> > educated world do so?
>> > On 6/19/09, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he
>> comes
>> > > from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if
>> you ask
>> > > me).
>> > > PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously
>> look at
>> > > the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
>> > > Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k
>> can't we
>> > > - the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or
>> PTA
>> > > guidelines?
>> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
>> > >> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
>> > >> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
>> > >> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning to
>> > >> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
>> > >> here WAPDA = ISP
>> > >> issue solved?
>> > >> regards.
>> > >> Rao
>> > >> Nethawk
>> > >> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its
>> just the
>> > >> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
>> > >> > Regards,
>> > >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> > >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
>> > >> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to
>> block
>> > >> 'gray
>> > >> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
>> > >> international
>> > >> > > call
>> > >> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they
>> do not
>> > >> get
>> > >> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes a
>> > >> > > > month
>> > >> by
>> > >> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
>> > >> sheri...@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of customer
>> as
>> > >> > > > > it
>> > >> > > > > says :-
>> > >> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer
>> doing
>> > >> > > > > illegal VoIP
>> > >> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs
>> of
>> > >> > > > > illegal
>> > >> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the ISPs'
>> > >> action
>> > >> > > > > can
>> > >> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and
>> > >> > > > > providing
>> > >> > > > > customer
>> > >> > > > > details PTA."
>> > >> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally
>> for
>> > >> that
>> > >> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer
>> are in
>> > >> some
>> > >> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must
>> respect
>> > >> > > > > its
>> > >> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should
>> not
>> > >> > > > > pass
>> > >> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent law
>> > >> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly
>> can
>> > >> ask
>> > >> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in court
>> and
>> > >> ISP
>> > >> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take
>> such
>> > >> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement agency.
>> > >> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
>> > >> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It
>> might be
>> > >> an
>> > >> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP
>> the
>> > >> only
>> > >> > > way
>> > >> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they
>> use
>> > >> cell
>> > >> > > > > phones
>> > >> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
>> > >> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
>> > >> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a
>> client
>> > >> misuses
>> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
>> > >> > > > > > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of VoIP
>> > >> traffic.
>> > >> > > Why
>> > >> > > > > > > cannot they accept it?
>> > >> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they
>> fight
>> > >> with
>> > >> > > you,
>> > >> > > > > > then you win"
>> > >> > > > > > -Gandhi
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
>> > >> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight
>> with
>> > >> you,
>> > >> > > > then you win"
>> > >> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Saqib Ilyas <msa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The increase in tariff is because the security situation in the country is
> worse now. Every voice frame that needs to be routed through switches in the
> country is at risk from extremist elements.
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, SYED ZAIDI <naja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>> Last year we were paying 2 cents per minute to make calls to Pakistan and
>> 5 cents to Indian . Now its totally opposite .
>> Now you can pay 1 cent to make calls to Indian and 13 cents to 15 cents
>> for Pakistan calls. So its so expensive to make calls to Pakistan . This is
>> the reason that every one looking around for some tricks or service to make
>> cheap calls to Pakistan.
>> Why not they can allow VOIP as legal and generate more revenue from voip
>> companies.
>> Thanks
>> Syed
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Necessity is mother of all inventions.
>>> who invented illegal VoIP?
>>> I think PTA should concentrate on lower rates of Pakistani outside
>>> who call in country.
>>> regards,
>>> Rao
>>> On Jun 19, 2:00 am, Rehan Allahwala <Re...@supertec.com> wrote:
>>> > I 2nd this WHY is voip illegal? Price it to me via their web site as a
>>> > citizen of this country what it is doing to hurt my country please.
>>> > Why can I be put in jail for using skype which the rest of the
>>> > educated world do so?
>>> > On 6/19/09, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Its funny who whenever a new PTA Chairman lands it - no matter if he
>>> comes
>>> > > from the industry, he suddenly decides that VoIP is bad. (khassi if
>>> you ask
>>> > > me).
>>> > > PTA has such a myopic approach to this all. Someone should seriously
>>> look at
>>> > > the laws, etc. and take PTA to court.
>>> > > Also, worth looking at, PTA is a public organization, why the f**k
>>> can't we
>>> > > - the Internet users have our voice imprinted into a form of a law or
>>> PTA
>>> > > guidelines?
>>> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Shaharyar Khan <sheri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >> Do they understand the difference between ISP and ITSP (internet
>>> > >> telephony service provider) business. ISP is only responsible for
>>> > >> bandwidth and ITSP provides ITSP over bandwidth.
>>> > >> Govt expect too much from software. Why don;t they issue a warning
>>> to
>>> > >> WAPDA that stop providing electricity to illegal VoIP customers.
>>> > >> here WAPDA = ISP
>>> > >> issue solved?
>>> > >> regards.
>>> > >> Rao
>>> > >> Nethawk
>>> > >> On Jun 18, 5:05 am, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >> > Have they issued any formal "warning letter" on the same or its
>>> just the
>>> > >> > previous letter we got through this mail thread?
>>> > >> > Regards,
>>> > >> > Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>> > >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Usman <usman.u...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >> > > Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???
>>> > >> > > > PTA has issued a warning to ISPs to install the software to
>>> block
>>> > >> 'gray
>>> > >> > > > traffic' on VoIP or expect action. They've also asked the
>>> > >> international
>>> > >> > > call
>>> > >> > > > centers to register their IP Addresses with PSEB so that they
>>> do not
>>> > >> get
>>> > >> > > > blocked. Apparently, they've already saved 14 million minutes
>>> a
>>> > >> > > > month
>>> > >> by
>>> > >> > > > blocking thousands of IPs so far.
>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Shaharyar Khan <
>>> > >> sheri...@gmail.com>
>>> > >> > > wrote:
>>> > >> > > > > 3rd clause of reply to PTCL does not go in favour of
>>> customer as
>>> > >> > > > > it
>>> > >> > > > > says :-
>>> > >> > > > > "iii. ISPs cannot take any action against any customer
>>> doing
>>> > >> > > > > illegal VoIP
>>> > >> > > > > as they don't have statutory powers to do so. If PTA informs
>>> of
>>> > >> > > > > illegal
>>> > >> > > > > activity done by any customer to the concerned ISP, the
>>> ISPs'
>>> > >> action
>>> > >> > > > > can
>>> > >> > > > > only be limited to locking of that customer's account and
>>> > >> > > > > providing
>>> > >> > > > > customer
>>> > >> > > > > details PTA."
>>> > >> > > > > here is why........people who use VoIP legally (or illegally
>>> for
>>> > >> that
>>> > >> > > > > matter) are the customers of ISPs whereas ISP and Customer
>>> are in
>>> > >> some
>>> > >> > > > > sort of "service agreement" as fair agreement ISP must
>>> respect
>>> > >> > > > > its
>>> > >> > > > > clients "privacy and confidentiality" therefore ISP should
>>> not
>>> > >> > > > > pass
>>> > >> > > > > information to PTA except as required by law or competent
>>> law
>>> > >> > > > > authority court etc EVEN not law enforcement agency directly
>>> can
>>> > >> ask
>>> > >> > > > > such a thing until disputed is arises and challenged in
>>> court and
>>> > >> ISP
>>> > >> > > > > is ordered to give information. who the hell is PTA to take
>>> such
>>> > >> > > > > information from ISPs PTA is not even law enforcement
>>> agency.
>>> > >> > > > > this would be more bold if wahaj dare to say this?
>>> > >> > > > > > Nice link, it is very informative. Thanks for that. It
>>> might be
>>> > >> an
>>> > >> > > > > > explanation for this, but then my question is that is VoIP
>>> the
>>> > >> only
>>> > >> > > way
>>> > >> > > > > > terrorists communicate? I've been reading and hearing they
>>> use
>>> > >> cell
>>> > >> > > > > phones
>>> > >> > > > > > in Pakistan. Cellular networks here are not using IP.
>>> > >> > > > > > I think its a zero-sum game to try these kind of things.
>>> > >> > > > > > > SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a
>>> client
>>> > >> misuses
>>> > >> > > the
>>> > >> > > > > > > service, it does not mean SCO is involved."
>>> > >> > > > > > > I still do not understand why PTA is so conscious of
>>> VoIP
>>> > >> traffic.
>>> > >> > > Why
>>> > >> > > > > > > cannot they accept it?
>>> > >> > > > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they
>>> fight
>>> > >> with
>>> > >> > > you,
>>> > >> > > > > > then you win"
>>> > >> > > > > > -Gandhi
>>> > >> > > > --
>>> > >> > > > Sheikh Usman N.
>>> > >> > > > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they
>>> fight with
>>> > >> you,
>>> > >> > > > then you win"
>>> > >> > > > -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
I'm sorry, but that has got to be the most absurd explanation I have ever heard Are you advocating Big Brother? Even if each and every frame needs to be monitored (it will be packets by the way, not frames), how does that possibly equate to increasing the cost of an 'incoming call'
*sahkes head* that was nothing short of a troll comment.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Saqib Ilyas <msa...@gmail.com> wrote: > The increase in tariff is because the security situation in the country is > worse now. Every voice frame that needs to be routed through switches in the > country is at risk from extremist elements.
|
