Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Tee Emm
them. Hence the mess that results after a false alarm is generated.
I heard Transworld backbone traffic suffered some big dips due to this
as a lot of their customers' IP got affected. May be Hasan/Amir can
confirm/deny this.
Internet in Pakistan has grown from nothingness to a respectable
10+Gbps affair. Almost like the fifth province if you will. It's sad
to see if falling in a mess too. :|
-T
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Haris Shamsi <haris....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't I mean for the first line
>
> On 2/27/09, Haris Shamsi <haris....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bilal the system implemented at egress does know if its a dynamic ip
>> or static IP.
>>
>> I don't think (as faisal khan has mentioned) that naurus cant block
>> skype/yahoo/msn type of voice communication - as identification of
>> traffic is happening on port basis, not via DPI
>>
>> Right faisal ?
>>
>> On 2/27/09, Bilal Khan <bkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also for the benefit of this post I will be using Yahoo messenger , MSN
>>> messenger etc. etc. For voice all day today, just to see if they are
>>> going
>>> to block me or not. I would also be originating some calls using Yahoo
>>> messenger Skype and other facilities that I have available to me, just to
>>> see if they block me or not. I will definitely be posting the results if
>>> I
>>> do get blocked, I will be using wire shark to monitor all the packets and
>>> will be posting a link where I will have all of my logs posted.
>>>
>>> God bless Pakistan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
>>> [mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Haris Shamsi
>>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:17 PM
>>> To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree on the static ip blocking statement. It is happening in
>>> automated manner and on clients having dynamic ips as well
>>>
>>> On 2/27/09, Bilal Khan <bkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> People of the group hello,
>>>>
>>>> Blocking the IP goes back to mid-of Ramadan when they actually started
>>>> blocking of IP addresses of people who were involved in either
>>>> termination\origination of gray telephony, or were just ordinary users
>>>> of
>>>> voice over IP, which included users of Yahoo messenger, MSN messenger
>>>> and
>>>> other similar applications. I am aware that Skype as of yet has managed
>>>> to
>>>> escape the eyes of a authority.
>>>>
>>>> Referring to a blog post by TM where it is referred to as a more evil
>>> stance
>>>> by LDI operators, I agree that it has actually now being developed into
>>>> a
>>>> full-fledged evil. Although keeping things balanced in this conversation
>>>> I
>>>> would like to mention that people whose IP addresses have been blocked
>>>> are
>>>> the ones using static IP facilities from their ISP. The point that the
>>>> authority makes here is that not every ordinary ISP user requires a
>>>> static
>>>> IP address which is a fair argument on their end, and they are only
>>>> requesting the ISPs to block the static IP's.
>>>>
>>>> I am not a supporter of the authority in any way and I personally
>>>> disagree
>>>> with what they have been doing and condemn it in the strongest possible
>>>> words. I consider this to be an invasion of privacy on till they have
>>>> the
>>>> proof that one of the of IPs that they have blocked is being used for
>>>> mala-fide intentions or being used for grey telephony. There have been
>>>> victims of the authority all around the country there they have raided
>>>> offices and have unsuccessfully done anything except for bringing a bad
>>> name
>>>> to the person or the company which were raided by them.
>>>>
>>>> Coming back to the main issue of blocking the IP address as I said that
>>>> started in mid of Ramadan and then it was basically stopped for a few
>>> months
>>>> now I am hearing again that because there has been an increase in grey
>>>> telephony because of the increase in APC and rates for incoming traffic
>>>> in
>>>> Pakistan, those who were in this business have started offering the
>>> services
>>>> again. Video techniques have now been employed by people who are doing
>>> this
>>>> like using VPN servers and SSL ports which the authority is unable to
>>>> monitor as of yet. Therefore they have no other option but to block
>>>> ports
>>>> which they fear are being used for illegal telephony.
>>>>
>>>> God bless Pakistan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
>>>> [mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Muhammad
>>> Anees
>>>> Ur Rahman
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:32 AM
>>>> To: Telecom Grid Pakistan
>>>> Cc: ane...@multinet.com.pk
>>>> Subject: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Sources from different ISPs have confirm that PTA is Blocking client
>>>> IPs now in full swing where as demanding other personal information of
>>>> client in detail. Please confirm if yo have any written source from
>>>> PTA side. Also confirm if the same demand from PTA is entertained from
>>>> all ISPs as my IP is also blocked due to only use of MSN & Yahoo
>>>> Messenger.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my mobile device
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> >
>
--
Tariq Mustafa MSN:t...@hotmail.com | Follow me: http://friendfeed.com/abunet
Phone Num:http://tinyurl.com/tmcell| Twitter: http://twitter.com/tariqmustafa
>>>>If you think email is dead, lets facebook: http://tinyurl.com/tmonfb <<<<<
Salman Ansari
My two pennies:
This IP blocking is an extension of the same senseless thing that Etisalat does in the prison they call UAE. Once they bought PTCL they pressured the Pakistan government to stop issuing licences for anything and the government quite happily went and gave verbal order (since this was against the written policy!) to PTA to stop new licences. This was specifically meant to target Zong (China Mobile) from getting an LDI licence, when all the other cellular operators have this facility within their own group. This is causing a lot of diplomatic crisis between Pakistan and China and despite the PM signing a document asking PTA to issue this, a phone call still stalls this. You can see a part of the manifestation of this and many other slights we have been giving China by the way Zadari was treated this time in China.
These mysterious phone calls are also the cause of this promiscuous IP blocking, despite the deliberate windfall the grey market operators are getting from the increase in international termination rates. I am sure when one makes an analysis of the incoming traffic and compares this with the earlier volumes, then calculates the money to be coming in from APC for the USF, prepare to be surprised at the outright theft taking place. Also mysteriously, the vigilance of this illegal traffic is quietly gone to sleep as the people involved do not want to be caught by some poor underling who can then trace these back to their relatives.
This VoIP blocking is a part of the same crazy, senseless and silly exercise. I wish we would finally have someone in the government that was really interested to see the damage being done to the industry and growth of technology use by the common man by such actions: by default and by design (e.g. 31% tax on all phone calls, tax on cell phones making this no longer a common man’s tool)…
Salman
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Inspirex
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 12:08 PM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
But if Naurus is any bit intelligent, it should be able to distinguish between the occasional MSN/Yahoo/Google voice chat user and the bulk grey market operator.
Or am i expecting too much common sense and intelligence from PTCL?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tee Emm <tariq....@gmail.com> wrote:
PTA is now really messing up with the user traffic big time. A large
number of IP addresses of end customers were blocked in the past few
days and most of them were end PC-to-PC voip cases.
The Naurus trigger happy team is probably trying to justify their
existence and what was being predicted at the time when this facility
was being set up is happening now.
(http://pakng.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/ldi-backed-anti-voip-move-now-more-evil/)
-T
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Haris Shamsi <haris....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Because they have started blocking SSL port
>
> On 2/27/09, Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman <aneesdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Sources from different ISPs have confirm that PTA is Blocking client
>> IPs now in full swing where as demanding other personal information of
>> client in detail. Please confirm if yo have any written source from
>> PTA side. Also confirm if the same demand from PTA is entertained from
>> all ISPs as my IP is also blocked due to only use of MSN & Yahoo
>> Messenger.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
>>
>> >
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> >
>
--
Tariq Mustafa MSN:t...@hotmail.com | Follow me: http://friendfeed.com/abunet
Phone Num:http://tinyurl.com/tmcell|
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tariqmustafa
>>>>If you think email is dead, lets facebook: http://tinyurl.com/tmonfb
<<<<<
--
- Inspirex
Waqa
there is a way".
PTA takes one step ahead and illegal voip Guru'z make ten steps ahead.
End of the day, who suffers.....
We are going "back to the future"..
Regards & Happy Pakistan!!!
On Feb 27, 3:07 pm, Faez Itrat <faez.it...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe all these activities are happening on adhoc basis and seems all
> R&D is being done at the cost of live networks- we have been seeing and
> experiencing all such so called 'illegal VoIP' blocking activities from past
> many years and this recent activity shows we have not learned much from the
> past - Those who are in this 'illegal' business i think have learned many
> other ways to bypass such controls and the ones who are being affected are
> normal ISP/internet customers
>
> On one hand efforts are being done to promote broadband/internet penetration
> while on the other such activities are hampering the overall industry-
>
> I wonder if anyone knows exactly what is allowed and what is not and that's
> why we are still unable to define exact control policies at egress points-
>
> Faez
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > just to add to it - Narus has been experiencing a few problems within PTA.
> > Narus is not able to extract Calling Party A/B number. PTCL recently put out
> > an RFP for just this, procurement of a solution that enables DPI and
> > extraction of A/B numbers, so that the dynamic IPs do not suffer. However,
> > since this was just tendered, it will be months before the solution is
> > actually implemented (provided PTCL buys it).
>
> > Any IP that PTA detects using VoIP is automatically blocked. PTCL and TWA
> > for that matter both have been active in blocking such IPs, which in most
> > cases are dynamic IPs and that the next user in line to get this dynamically
> > (blocked) IP assigned, wonders what the heck is wrong with his/her internet
> > connection.
>
> > Its a plain mess if you ask me.
>
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Wasim Baig <wasimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Haris Shamsi <haris.sha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> I disagree on the static ip blocking statement. It is happening in
> >>> automated manner and on clients having dynamic ips as well
>
> >> of dynamic IPs is occurring. For the last few days, using WorldCALL has
> >> become nigh impossible (though, that may be because of their internal
> >> technical issues as well).
>
> >> Blocking SSL is just plain inane. Can someone get the Authority to comment
> >> on this? Whats next, blocking SSH?
>
> >> Dr Sb, we though perhaps PTA would become a little less autocratic and
> >> militant in its policing of the country's Internet under your tenure.
> >> Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> >> --
> >> wasim h. baig | principal consultant | convergence pk | +92 300 8508070 |
> >> peace be upon you ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Faisal Khan
For those who are saying its not a Narus issue, let me elaborate. If someone has set up a VoIP gateway (illegally), then narus can only detect the Source IP/Dest IP. Becuase this is the only information that is provided, and passed on to PTA, the destination IP is blocked. Case resolved (as far as PTA is concerned).
If they had the calling Party A and B number they can take much further action, by deactivating the SIM box, or telco/Wireless phone line rather than blocking the dynamic IP. IPs are plenty. SIMs/Telephone lines are a few. Makes sense to block the latter than the former.
PTA is basically very tired of Narus (sorry for the Narus bashing, but hey its coming) due to the Clearing House Project. They (PTA) have had some major issues with Narus. What PTA needs to do is to start an RSS list and update IPs, policies, etc. notifications that keep coming out, orders, to block IPs or websites, so that a uniform platform exists to address it.
I think the only prudent thing is to 'write' to PTA (have something in writing) and then pursue it with them. They are a Govt. entity, and in return public-servants, they need to behave as such, and not think of themselves as high-demi-Gods in any case. Some still do within PTA. If it were up to PTA they would like to charge you a paisa for every URL you access (they've reduced themselves down to a money making machine at our expense). This VoIP issue has gone out of control... Remember it was not long ago when Faisal Chohan (sic?) episode happened.
I again would reiterate that you need to put pressure on PTA in writing (and ask them to reply back in detail with a clarification). This is a good enough starting point.
FK
Haris Shamsi
Faisal Khan
Navaid Ahmed
some thing interesting to share
www.apt.int/Program/SG/Final%20Reports%202006-2007/Report%20of%20SQ2.6.doc
Navaid
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:14:26 +0500
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Windows Live™ Hotmail®…more than just e-mail. See how it works.
Bilal Khan
Sincerely,
Bilal Khan
QixTel Communications
Tel: +92-91-5830528
Mob: +92-313-559-3366
Tee Emm
Dear Customers,
During the past few days, some of you faced connectivity issues. These issues had their origin in IP connectivity not functioning as expected. ISP_NAME would like to explain the situation to its valued customers.
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has recently implemented a technical facility to monitor and mitigate illegal VoIP (Voice over IP) traffic. The services is said to be intelligent enough to actively monitor and analyze the traffic and take automatic actions subsequently to curb the illegal traffic.
Besides the regulatory orders sent to every licensed ISP for the filtering and restriction of standard voice (SIP and H.323) ports, the authority now monitors the traffic and finds matching patterns that can possibility be voice packets. Users using Internet for voice without proper license are detected by their IP addresses and the facility automatically blocks these IP addresses. All kind of traffic for such users is blocked.
The current situation can also affect entire organizations where the network is behind a NAT device and the action of a single user in the organization can adversely affect the entire organization because the outside IP address gets blocked by this active monitoring system.
We have also observed that it is likely that besides the standard ports, the system has also started to monitor and block usage of VPN, SSH and SSL which might not necessarily be related to voice activities.
ISP_NAME and other service providers in the industry have taken up this issue very strongly with the PTA. We have based our argument on the misery of the end users who are not involved in any kind of illegal VoIP operations and who are being subjected to connectivity outages due to the reckless use of the facility. The industry association will also try to highlight the issue in the media to build up the pressure to fix this wrong that is affecting our valued customer.
Faisal Khan
Aftab Siddiqui
the same on monday?
Can anyone confirm this? seems like a ray of hope to get out of this mess.
> those who don't know it - reasonably well.
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Navaid Ahmed <nava...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> some thing interesting to share
>>
>> SQ2.6*.doc
>>
>>
>> Navaid
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> >
>>
>
> >
>
--
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
faez....@gmail.com
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
-----Original Message-----
From: Bilal Khan <bkn...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:41:07
To: <telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com>
Rizwan Sarwar
Rizwan
Aftab Siddiqui
ISPs. Let's assume that they have well set "policy" and they are going
to penalize ISP for any voice activity from their CIDR. Before being
penalized "the" regulator should provide a detailed report. Hmmmm
that's missing :) if IP is blocked than ISP should be intimidated
immediately to catch the user, again that's missing. And "the"
regulator should provide the criteria to the ISP on which they are
checking the traffic. Atleast I haven't seen any such criteria.
Sir jee, at the end of the day who is suffering ISPs and end-users.
Point is that if there is policy than all ISPs will abide by that but
sir where is the policy :)
You have no idea how much annoyance ISP are facing everyday. ISPs are
the one who wants to resolve the matter, ironically "the" regulator is
not doing anything to clear the mess in anyway.
Again its my opinion and could be wrong. My appologies just in case am wrong :)
>> >>>>If you think email is dead, lets facebook:
>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/tmonfb<<<<<
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>
> >
>
Bilal Khan
people of the authority will have some sense after all! Don't know when they
will start blocking services like Fring and Skype on mobile phones.
-----Original Message-----
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bilal Khan
Good points there Rizwan, but are you actually aware that who we are talking about here (sarcasm again) these are the great people of the telecommunication authority, they don't even know how to ……………… (guys fill this up yourself, use your imagination).
I really wish that they would have talked about that before doing such actions. They are least bothered about as mentioned we previously in the same mailing list that this to have that aristocratic attitude towards things.
God bless Pakistan
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rizwan
Sarwar
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:21 PM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
This is loads of cobblers, how
can a third party or regulatory authority is responsible for taking action on
something which originated from a responsible/Registered ISP. Surely this the wrong
way to do things! Are PTA not able to talk to ISP's on how to implement
policies and procedures or is it the case the ISP's are just showing PTA the
finger? Surely the role of a regulatory body such as PTA should be to regulate
ISP's not users...... ISP's should regulate users. If PTA can take actions
against ISP's on complaints then it would be much better and easier where ISP's
are able to track down individuals responsible and take action against them. Is
it just me seeing all this being done wrong?
Rizwan
Zappernator
You mean that each ISP should install Narus or any alternate deep
packet analyzer at its own cost?
I think its lot better that PTA should check traffic, inform ISP about
IP, get customer info from ISP
and raid the customer using its own means and resources and ISP should
NOT be held responsible for this.
What if I start VoIP on PTCL Internet backbone? would PTA penalize
PTCL then?
What if I start grey traffic on Mobilink numbers (almost 90% of
International Calls are coming via Mobilink now a days)
would PTA suspend Mobilink's GSM License the way they did with a small
company like brain tel?
This is the country of discrimination and lawlessness, Salman Ansari
sahab well said that big giants dictate authority,
small local companies gets removed by such dictations.
Sorry if my message hurts someone's feelings.
Regards,
Z
On Feb 27, 9:47 pm, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Mr. Rizwan. You are absolutely right that PTA should be regulating
> ISPs. Let's assume that they have well set "policy" and they are going
> to penalize ISP for any voice activity from their CIDR. Before being
> penalized "the" regulator should provide a detailed report. Hmmmm
> that's missing :) if IP is blocked than ISP should be intimidated
> immediately to catch the user, again that's missing. And "the"
> regulator should provide the criteria to the ISP on which they are
> checking the traffic. Atleast I haven't seen any such criteria.
>
> Sir jee, at the end of the day who is suffering ISPs and end-users.
> Point is that if there is policy than all ISPs will abide by that but
> sir where is the policy :)
>
> You have no idea how much annoyance ISP are facing everyday. ISPs are
> the one who wants to resolve the matter, ironically "the" regulator is
> not doing anything to clear the mess in anyway.
>
> Again its my opinion and could be wrong. My appologies just in case am wrong :)
>
>
> > This is loads of cobblers, how can a third party or regulatory authority is
> > responsible for taking action on something which originated from a
> > responsible/Registered ISP. Surely this the wrong way to do things! Are PTA
> > not able to talk to ISP's on how to implement policies and procedures or is
> > it the case the ISP's are just showing PTA the finger? Surely the role of a
> > regulatory body such as PTA should be to regulate ISP's not users......
> > ISP's should regulate users. If PTA can take actions against ISP's on
> > complaints then it would be much better and easier where ISP's are able to
> > track down individuals responsible and take action against them. Is it just
> > me seeing all this being done wrong?
>
> > Rizwan
>
>
> >> > Way too sarcastic, I doubt that would happen !
>
>
> >> >> Wait until they start blocking /24s
>
>
> read more »
Haris Shamsi
are available openly in the market.
How come an operator (cellco) can stop it ??? If I install a channel
bank and use sims of mobilink will mobilink we be able to understand
that behind that I am terminating an international call ??
I agree that ingredd and egress should be the points to check the
traffic and I am all for it however before implememting such systems
and policies the implications should be studied. Having dpi and
automated blocking could be a solution but blocking secure ports in
just assumtion that they are in use for voice terminations is some
very very foolish.
Today its ssl tommorow it could be any VPN - GRE or ipsec tunnel ports
- is this really a solution ?
I think more reason able approach would be to implement dpi and have
blocking done by having proper sniffing for both A and B part -
implementing a half baked solution and trying to rectify the grey
traffic issue is useless.
Some mentioned implementing these solution at ISP site!!!! Come on
this is what we are confronting since begining as industry , believe
me it doesn't make commercial sense. It has to be at xchange leve
(IX) not at all at ISP site.
Good Day,
Haris Shamsi
Haris Shamsi
Shaukat Siddiqui
From: Wahaj us Siraj/MGMT [mailto:wa...@dsl.net.pk]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:59 AM
To: 'Masud Reza /OPS'; 'ipre...@pta.gov.pk'; Mohammed Yasin
(mya...@pta.gov.pk)
Cc: 'tai...@pta.gov.pk'; 'aq...@dsl.net.pk'; 'co...@nayatel.com';
'mya...@pta.gov.pk'; 'Saad Saleem'; 'Azfar Manzoor'; Naeem Haq;
'Sohail Akhter Tipu'
Subject: RE: Erroneous Blocking of IP Addresses by PTA....
Chairman
PTA
Islamabad
Dear Sir,
We’ve brought the situation to your kind notice many times. Previous
blocking of our legitimate IP addresses by PTA (our mail server, DNS
server and office LAN) has also gone unanswered without any proof or
evidence provided to us.
All other ISPs are facing similar issues and we’re very upset on this
state of affairs. ISP’s of country are being direct victim of this
PTA’s blocking “facility” which has become an “inability” for the
Internet users in the country.
This unilateral move of PTA is resulting in serious loss of business
and reputation to the ISPs. ISPs have now to cope with increased
number of yelling customers whose services get blocked by PTA without
any notification, degraded quality of services and running around
after PTA in getting services unblocked. Everything adds to increase
in operational cost and decrease in revenues. This situation should
not continue as such.
PTA’s role is of facilitator and enabler and not service blocker.
Inherited services of Internet should not be blocked without proper
proof and evidence of some illegal activity. PTA has also shifted the
burden of proof to ISPs in order to benefit LDIs. Mobile and fixed
line operators who are the actual source of local call termination/
origination are given free hand without any check and balance and poor
ISPs are being penalized for no fault of them. This is highly
objectionable and discrimination on part of PTA to benefit one set of
licensees at the expense of others.
PTA has also stopped the practice of catching illegal VOIP gateways on
the pretext that once culprits are apprehended, they’re set to walk
free by the high-ups of this country. Instead of catching the real
culprits, PTA has restored to block the information highways of the
country so that no one would have any access to Internet. There cannot
be a more repressive and crude way to implement such rules in the
country.
We therefore request PTA to kindly take immediate corrective measures
on above burning issues and we request for an immediate meeting with
you within this week to resolve these issues.
Kind regards.
Wahaj us Siraj
ISPAK
On Feb 27, 11:32 am, Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
Arsalan Ahmed
I am wondering what PTA is going to do when Ipv6 will be under
usage :)
I dont know till when we will be doing things in opposite direction,
from bottom to top. In this case it appears that PTA is testing things
and under implementation phase without generating any policy. I guess
those transport ppl are much influential as they are consulted for any
transport related policy (same is true for fuel companies). Its time
for PTA to understand the market needs and should keep all stake-
holders into loop for any such policy designing.
On Feb 27, 6:32 pm, Haris Shamsi <haris.sha...@gmail.com> wrothe:
>
Ashar Iqbal
their customers a contact number at the PTA and tell them that it is
legal to use Voip unless you terminate traffic to a licenced network.
Lets be very clear. Using PC to PC voip is totally legal and has been
since at least 1996. There is a PTA 'determination' to that effect. So
blocking this kind of traffic is illegal even if it is the PTA doing
it.
I am sure no ISP wants to take the PTA to court but some customer will
do so, if encouraged.
Ashar
Bilal Khan
contribution!
-----Original Message-----
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Haris Shamsi
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:15 PM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Bilal Khan
my message, I went ahead with it yesterday and did that. There were some
pretty amazing discoveries and hearts broken as well probably the one which
was broken most, was mine. I actually started off with using MSN on one of
the virtual machines and connecting it to another remote peer in the UK and
left both of them listening to music so that packets are coming and going
through. Nothing happened after couple of hours so I had to continue moving
on to the next step.
The next thing that I did was with Yahoo messenger. The exactly same
connected it to a remote peer in UK and let them both sing music to each
other. Continued that for about a couple of hours, although I did not
experience any kind of blockage from my ISP or the demonic authority, I
would like to mention that I am a WiMAX user.
After that I went on to do the same with Skype and it continued for a couple
of hours with same results of no blockage from the ISP or for that matter
TW1.
Now the interesting part as soon as I started transferring or for that
matter originating calls from my PC to a remote asterisk server using
standard session initiation protocol on 5060 the packets were immediately
blocked and I was unable to connect to the asterisk server. So there they
had some success in blocking voice packets. Although I continued to do that
for about an hour’s time but again I did not experience any kind of IP
blockage from my ISP or for that matter the authority.
The next thing was that I quickly build up in asterisk system here at my end
and then from my remote asterisk server I forwarded some calls to my
asterisk server that I had created for experimenting here. I kept on trying
for about 15 minutes and I think approximately after 15 minutes suddenly
everything stopped BOOOMM!! , no browsing, no connectivity to any kind of
outside world and I was unable to even ping my IP address from the outside
world which meant that the IP had been blocked. But to my surprise after
about 40 or 45 minutes everything was again working fine which means that it
was only a temporary block where ever it was.
Although I did not stop there and I started doing the same as soon as I
could connect to Internet and started originating calls from my asterisk in
the UK to my server here. This time it continued for about half an hour and
after that again the IP was blocked although the block this time was not 30
minutes or 40 minutes, it was for a couple of hours. I had presumed that the
Internet connection has been permanently blocked. But it was not the case
and after about a couple of hours I could again continue to browse and work
on Internet as I was doing before.
The next part of the test was to use the VPN server just to see if they
could still detect it and block. I started to use a router and IP sec
tunneling for that. This time it continued for about an hour without any
blockages as such, which made me presume that they are unable to detect any
data that has been encrypted.
Next, was the use of the VPN-based soft phone which would actually connect
directly to an asterisk server at a remote geographical location, using the
VPN tunnel. Again this was successfully done and no blockages were seen in
that.
It makes me wonder whether the amount of money that the authority had
invested last year in getting a solution for themselves, which would
actually be working and not creating a mess in the market like it has done,
was that the right decision or just another aristocratic move that they
love.
God bless Pakistan
P.S someone mentioned one-liners I guess ;) between you and me I guess it
would be okay now.
-----Original Message-----
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Haris Shamsi
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:15 PM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Bilal Khan
the one and only Dr. Yaseen. With all due respects I would like to mention
that everyone in the industry was expecting too much from him than he
actually took the post last year from the general who again in his pedestal
cracked nature only new to run the authority by stick.
I wish he had lived up to expectations and had not fallen for all that
evolves and grows around him.
I would like to mention here that PTA has not stopped catching illegal voice
over IP gateways but you are pretty RIGHT in your message that they are
being freed by the high-ups of the country. Although most of the time the
parties involved agree on a handsome amount of money and things are
forgotten about by the authority.
God bless Pakistan
-----Original Message-----
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shaukat
Siddiqui
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:15 PM
To: Telecom Grid Pakistan
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Bilal Khan
course of action or am I getting it wrong. Let's assume for a minute that
your Internet has been blocked and you have no idea why. What will be the
first thing that you would do? Probably pick up the phone and call your ISPs
helpline and complain that your service is not working.
I'm sure the next thing that they would want you to do is sit in front of
your PC and ping a specific IP or try to ping the DNS servers which would be
working because they are locally located on the same network. The next they
would ask you to probably check out if your DSL modem is synced which it
probably would be and everything would seem to work fine and if they were to
say that probably has something to do with your computer. There you would be
pulling your hair out off your head, but still it would not work. I guess I
event of its out of context here that this is how things work and having a
number for PTA would not help the consumer. Most of the time when a person
is using a dynamic IP TO do is try and reconnect to Internet so that a new
IP address is allotted to them, which would probably solve the issue.
I agree that PC to PC voice over IP is totally legal but at the moment it is
being blocked I should rephrase that it is being actively blocked by PTA. I
know that it is a determination to that effect but who is going to implement
it. About taking PTA to court, it could be a risky business and then the
telecom act protects them as well in this regard.
God bless Pakistan
-----Original Message-----
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ashar Iqbal
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:08 PM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Aftab Siddiqui
really appreciate your efforts. Just to add little I am using a DSL
connection back home with IP phone. Its running on SIP and since
morning I have made couple of calls and received 4 to 5 calls without
any problem, call duration was more than 15min everytime. I guess PTA
took half day on saturdays :p and turned off Narus (if they r using
it) for some rest.
Rizwan Sarwar
Riz
Wasim Baig
So what is the issue here, I might be thick, but could someone explain to me why using voip is a bad thing? As I understand it, bandwidth has a price attached to it, ISP has paid the price to buy that bandwidth. This sounds ludicrous to me if you pay for bandwidth and then can not use it for what you want it for. I can understand if the traffic block was being done for illegal content sharing etc but blocking VOIP is is justified because ....?
this causes a loss to the national exchequer, but more to the pocket linings of the fat cat LDIs
with a little arm twisting, the powers that be are cracking down on all and sundry with a liberal application of roohafza ...
you and I, my friend, and a million teeming minion others, are what is known as collateral damage ...
accessibilty, usability, connectivity, productivity, be dammed ...
A. Sajjad Zaidi
Does this mean that one day, I may lose access to all the servers I manage remotely? What happens when I can't show up for a critical Skype meeting because my IP was automatically blocked? Who do I talk to if I become a victim of the aforementioned collateral damage?
No wonder people still think twice before doing business in Pakistan.
Sajjad
Ahmad, Shakeel
and works from home for US/UK clients (like many other now a days). He
is also complaining that currently he cannot work for his clients on
SIP/IAX as most of his servers gets blocked by PTA and he had to buy a
SSL VPN Service just to make sure he is delivering the jobs in time.
I'm not sure if PSEB members are on board, but this should be taken up
with PTA as above example shows that we do have legitimate use of VOIP
in Pakistan other than LDI and Call Centers. Remote Support is a
reality in PK and above actions would be definitely hurting this
portion of our IT industry - though its small and grooming.
Rizwan Sarwar
@ Haris, as I see it, either it is LDI taking the money or PTCL the EU is the only one being conned. And by blocking VOIP the problem is being solved, it is probably making it worst. Why don't PTA not put their weight behind regulations that apply to both LDI and PTCL to provide competative rates to EU and lift the ban on LDI's. There is a massive market which to me it seems PTCL wants to keep hold of by not providing lower rates and not allowing any LDI's ( even if they are legal). It all makes no sense and is hurting the people who pay for the service.
Riz
Faisal Khan
PTA needs to be controlled. Plain and simple.
Shaukat Ali
Regards,
Shaukat
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Warid.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ahmad, Shakeel" <shakee...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 23:41:36
Aftab Siddiqui
Both cases were forwarded to PSEB as well but somehow service provider contacted PTA to unblock the IP after resubmission of license copy. Not sure what is the procedure of PSEB for the same and what measures they are taking at this point in time.
sa...@pseb.org.pk
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Warid.
From: Aftab Siddiqui
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:26:29 +0500
Wasim Baig
If the cases referenced by Mr. Aftab are still not resolved or remained pending outstandingly, please send detailed info of these call centers at siq...@pseb.org.pk
Iqbal Sb:
Pleasure seeing PSEB participating in this thread.
Can you clarify if there is provision from PSEB for a single professional who wants to use his home PC to provide technical services abroad. Would the same Rs5000 registration fee be required? I presume this would necessitate using a static IP address from the ISP.
Haris Shamsi
Haris Shamsi
the grey traffic issue.
Good Day,
Haris Shamsi
Aftab Siddiqui
I hope this will be useful - attached is the SOP from PTA to handle
the grey traffic issue.
Good Day,
Haris Shamsi
- Show quoted text -
Wasim Baig
Thankx for sharing this document.Refr to the document, the same was circulated by PTA a month ago and they failed to implement what they emphasised on.Point 2(a) says that "PTA will notify the ISP", till todate we haven't got any notification of any sort from PTA. Ironically we have to ask PTA if the IP is blocked due to voice activity.Point 2(b) says that "operator has to verify illegal activity". Is there any operator who can verify such thing?I hope ISPAK has taken up this case.
I'm sure RoohAfza has that API available. I'm sure TGP can come up with resources to code up a quick and dirty page for this if needed.
Haris Shamsi
mechanism for voice traffic) the fact that the customer is involved in
grey traffic of voice.
Faisal Khan
I know so many people who use VoIP - and Narus would flag them all - question is - this increase in VoIP dectection - is this all home/user based - has anyone checked to see to whom the IPs are belonging to?
There surely must be illegal SIM gateways, etc. operating here - but for that PTA needs to involve companies that specialize in SIM box detection (which is done by calling into the country, as opposed to sniffing traffic). The determination of what is black (non-kosher) and white (kosher) is becoming grey (no pun intended).
Haris Shamsi
mentioned in your email, falls under grey traffic.
For processing a DSL case, customer signs a bond not to you use any
sort of voice service. Comments from the list will be appreciated.
Good Day,
Haris Shamsi
Faez Itrat
Aftab Siddiqui
Ashar Iqbal
that says the VOIP is illegal. It that old T&T dept. mind set that the
PTA has inherited and forced onto the ISPs.
Ashar
Adeel Azmat
Faisal Khan
Aftab Siddiqui
Faisal Khan
Ahmad, Shakeel
using this from years for my home office and running Avaya/SIP based
both phones.
Navaid Ahmed
The idea behind all this is not ONLY to handle gray traffic, if it’s so few or at least one of among those who are generating illegal traffic must have arrested rather just to block them (Illegal generation of VoIP traffic can lead to arrest under PTA’s law). It doesn’t make any sense to block all internet traffic over the IP even if it could be blocked for specific protocols.
Recently I had a meeting with one of PTCL higher official, they have clear set of mind for DSL service providers to come with PTCL or prepare to war against their survival (good opportunity for those ISP’s who have only DSL service), as i know one has accepted. They are in a way to reduce their competitors in consumer market. Can any one make sure if the same thing happening on PTCL DSL service, because when I called to PTCL support center they were not reported yet for any such complain.
They are just trying to irritate SME’s and home users as we aware that normally home users take broadband services to gain better voice/video quality on Yahoo webcam or any messenger to be in touch with their relatives live abroad. It sounds good PTCL finally aggressive to botch DSL market but PTA shouldn’t be the part of any unfair game
Navaid
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:35:29 +0500
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Faisal Khan
http://www.meucci-solutions.com
http://www.revector.com
http://www.araxxe.com
http://www.xintec.com
http://www.agilisinternational.com
http://www.syniverse.com
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation(s) with these companies..
Shariq Khan
I think, get a new SIM is more easily then to get a new IP even after the implementation of 789 for the SIM activation.
Shariq Khan
Bilal Khan
defines whether voice over IP is illegal or legal. There is that old
telegraph act which they have always made a base for their cases.
-----Original Message-----
From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ashar Iqbal
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:23 AM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Khalid Khan
firewall that blocks ports and allows legitimate ones only. We are a
corporate office and nobody uses any VOIP termination here, still we
got blocked. I don't know what sort of classification PTA is using to
define grey traffic. I fear if they are blocking legitimate users. :(
On Mar 4, 8:30 pm, "Bilal Khan" <bkni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very well said Ashar, I agree with you that there is no law currently which
> defines whether voice over IP is illegal or legal. There is that old
> telegraph act which they have always made a base for their cases.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ashar Iqbal
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
>
> The contract is a cop out by the ISP. There is no law or regulation
> that says the VOIP is illegal. It that old T&T dept. mind set that the
> PTA has inherited and forced onto the ISPs.
>
> Ashar
>
>
> > Faisal i think, through regular DSL running the voip in the method
> > mentioned in your email, falls under grey traffic.
> > For processing a DSL case, customer signs a bond not to you use any
> > sort of voice service. Comments from the list will be appreciated.
>
> > Good Day,
> > Haris Shamsi
>
> >> One question that begs to be asked is if I as a regular DSL (Home
> >> User/Subscriber) decide to use the VoIP functionality in my Wifi Router
> and
> >> get a DID number in the US, and have my family call me - is this
> considered
> >> 'grey traffic' as this surely is no grey-traffic 'gateway'?
>
> >> I know so many people who use VoIP - and Narus would flag them all -
> >> question is - this increase in VoIP dectection - is this all home/user
> based
> >> - has anyone checked to see to whom the IPs are belonging to?
>
> >> There surely must be illegal SIM gateways, etc. operating here - but for
> >> that PTA needs to involve companies that specialize in SIM box detection
> >> (which is done by calling into the country, as opposed to sniffing
> traffic).
> >> The determination of what is black (non-kosher) and white (kosher) is
> >> becoming grey (no pun intended).
>
>
> >>> the question is, how to establish (AT ISP level having no sniffing
> >>> mechanism for voice traffic) the fact that the customer is involved in
> >>> grey traffic of voice.
>
> >>> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Aftab Siddiqui
Bilal Khan
if you can explain your situation in a bit more detail than I think I
might be able to help you out in getting your IPs reopened. Please be
as descriptive as you can ! I had mentioned earlier that they do block
you if you use SIP on the default ports !
syed Iftikhar ahmed
They block our firewall IP even when there is no VoIP traffic (VoIP traffic is already blocked from inside to outside by firewall).
Any one from PTA on this forum kindly explain the criteria of blocking.
Regards,
Iftikhar Ahmed
> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:31:57 -0800
> Subject: Re: PTA is Blocking Client Live IPs ( VoIP )
Khalid Khan
them is used by default SIP or H323.
1-110 tcp/udp
443 tcp
8443 tcp
2095 tcp
2096 tcp
995 tcp
11371 tcp
143 tcp
1863 tcp/udp
5222 tcp/udp
5223 tcp/udp
2082 tcp
2083 tcp
2088 tcp
NEXLINX is our Internet Service Provider. IP blocked is 202.59.70.115
Regards,
Khalid Naveed Khan
Sr. Network Engineer
NESPAK House
NESPAK Lahore
Aftab Siddiqui
Tee Emm
Tariq Mustafa MSN:t...@hotmail.com | Follow me: http://friendfeed.com/abunet
Phone Num:http://tinyurl.com/tmcell| Twitter: http://twitter.com/tariqmustafa
>>>>If you think email is dead, lets facebook: http://tinyurl.com/tmonfb <<<<<
Ahmad, Shakeel
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Rehan Allah Wala
I have been watching this tread going a LONG way and wanted to add very small note here.
I have NOT read the whole thread as there are TOO many emails on here, but here are my 2
cents.
The site internetcalls.net software uses vpn already and it is not going to get blocked if u use
that.
Same for voipbuster.com and other 50 other sites from that same company will not be
blocked due to Naurus.
Google talk is also something that still works fine even in uae, and can not be blocked by
naurus.
All these product work fine in UAE also where almost nothing works.
Well IAX2 also works.
Till now naurus only blocks SIP Calls in uae and also some times SKYPE does not work ,
even for chat it does not work some times, but in Pakistan I think that Naurus is not yet in full
effect.
and it is NOT in my opinion going to do ANYTHING for illegal voip operation, illegal voip
providers will keep on terminating illegal traffic via gazillion other ways, like gaisal mentioned
vpn is one of them.
These disruptive technologies are NOT stopable, and the only people they will stop are the
people that are innocent end internet users, and NO ONE else.
PLEASE this country is already going though a LOT of other mess, please DO NOT mess up
this small beautiful thing called the internet for us, as this is the ONLY way we MAY be able
to survive in this new world.
I Encourage all of you, to start sending fax and letters to
1. PSEB MD
2. PTA Chairman
3. Ministry of IT
Asking them to OPEN UP Voip in Pakistan and take way the LABEL of ILLEGAL from it, as
People like Faisal Chohan are people who make money and reputation for this country and
are not some one you want to loose from this nation, DO NOT scare people like him away
from this country PLEASE.
Rehan
>
> Just a few queries (please pardon my level of knowledge).
> 1. So when I come back to Pakistan, I always use a VOIP software to call abroad outgoing only
> (say internetcalls.com etc), will that be blocked now? 2. I use x-lite to have my office work phone
> with me so I can make calls from there as well AFTER i have connected to the VPN, should that
> be affected?
> Thanks.
> Adeel
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would second the comments of Mr. Faez that there should be sampling. Combating "gray
> traffic" means catching those so calledcompanies who are providing illegal ILD/DLD and for
> sure they generate continuous voice traffic.
Rehan Ahmed AllahWala
Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTalk/Email: Re...@Rehan.com
http://www.supertec.com/ - Internet Telephony Solutions
Http://www.DIDX.net - DID Number Market Place.
Don't Remember Me ? Visit http://www.Rehan.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
By Gandhi.
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." - Gandhi
Ashar Iqbal
attentions while engaged in the VOIP business I have read some of the
relevant laws. There is no law against VOIP. PC to PC Voip (or to be
correct: device to device Voip) is entirely legal except that as soon
as you connect a licenced network to an unlicenced network you are in
trouble.
Just read the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996
(there are several copies out there
http://www.google.com.pk/search?q=pakistan+telcommunication+reorganisation+ordinance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
)
Read all of it but especially section 20 and it should be fairly clear.
Ashar
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Zahir Syed <zahi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Zahid,
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong, as per my understanding the current law
> says that all types of VIOP traffic unless it is not through a licensed
> provider is illegal regardless of type of use. If this is correct then the
> court will throw this out unless the law is changed.
>
> Regards
>
> Zahir
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Zahid Jamil <za...@jamilandjamil.com> wrote:
>>
>> Aye
>>
>>
>>
>> Zahid Jamil
>>
>> Barrister-at-law
>>
>> Jamil & Jamil
>>
>> Barristers-at-law
>>
>> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
>>
>> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
>>
>> Cell: +923008238230
>>
>> Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
>>
>> Fax: +92 21 5655026
>>
>> www.jamilandjamil.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice / Disclaimer
>>
>> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
>> communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
>> recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
>> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
>> message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
>> contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
>> and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
>> privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
>> any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
>> it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
>> incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
>> permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: pakistan...@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:pakistan...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jawwad Farid
>> Sent: 05 March 2009 17:33
>> To: Adeel Azmat; telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com;
>> pasha...@yahoogroups.com
>> Cc: pakistan...@yahoogroups.com; pres...@pasha.org.pk;
>> sal...@super.net.pk
>> Subject: [pakistanictpolicy] Re: [pashagroup] PTA Civil Action
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the only way this can be addressed is if PASHA goes out and files
>> a civil suite against PTA representing the interests of its members.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are successful and we do not settle and take PTA to the cleaners,
>> this problem will go away once and for all. Otherwise it will remain a
>> festering sore for the rest of our lives and the generations to come. And
>> once you do this to a government entity, everyone else will respect you for
>> as long as you are around.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any lawyers out there crazy enough to take this on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jawwad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 3/5/09, Rehan Allah Wala <re...@supertec.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Rehan Allah Wala <re...@supertec.com>
>> Subject: [pashagroup] VOIP in Pakistan
>> To: "Adeel Azmat" <adeel...@gmail.com>,
>> telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com,
>> telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
>> Cc: pakistan...@yahoogroups.com, pasha...@yahoogroups.com,
>> pres...@pasha.org.pk, sal...@super.net.pk
>> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 3:50 PM
>>
>> Dear Adeel and others,
>>
>> I have been watching this tread going a LONG way and wanted to add very
>> small note here.
>>
>> I have NOT read the whole thread as there are TOO many emails on here, but
>> here are my 2
>> cents.
>>
>> The site internetcalls. net software uses vpn already and it is not going
>> > (say internetcalls. com etc), will that be blocked now? 2. I use x-lite
>> > to have my office work phone
>> > with me so I can make calls from there as well AFTER i have connected to
>> > the VPN, should that
>> > be affected?
>> > Thanks.
>> > Adeel
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@
>> > gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I would second the comments of Mr. Faez that there should be sampling.
>> > Combating "gray
>> > traffic" means catching those so calledcompanies who are providing
>> > illegal ILD/DLD and for
>> > sure they generate continuous voice traffic.
>>
>> Rehan Ahmed AllahWala
>> Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTal k/Email: Rehan@Rehan. com
>> http://www.supertec .com/ - Internet Telephony Solutions
>> Http://www.DIDX. net - DID Number Market Place.
>> Don't Remember Me ? Visit http://www.Rehan. com
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
>> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
>> you win."
>> By Gandhi.
>>
>> "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live
>> forever." - Gandhi
>
> __._,_.___
> Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
> MARKETPLACE
> ________________________________
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format
> to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> Recent Activity
>
> 3
> New Members
> 1
> New Files
>
> Visit Your Group
> Y! Groups blog
>
> The place to go
>
> to stay informed
>
> on Groups news!
>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Dog Lovers Group
>
> Connect and share with
>
> dog owners like you
>
> Group Charity
>
> Be the Change
>
> A citizen movement
>
> to change the world
>
> .
> __,_._,___
Ashar Iqbal
that act is legal. We do not need permission from the govt for
anything.
Ashar
Mahmood Ahmed
http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=668&scid=150&Itemid=1
..................
Since its inception, PTA has always been there for growth of telecom business and ICT in the country. It is particularly concerned about that VoIP which is being used by some illegal operators for illegitimate termination / origination of international traffic involving use of VoIP on commercial scale by setting up of gateways and mini exchanges without a valid license. It is not in the knowledge of general public if; PTA ever has restricted VoIP for individuals using different programs to chat with their loved ones with a personal computer on both ends. The students and researchers are using it for interacting with each other regarding their research purposes without any barriers. Last but not the least, business community all over Pakistan uses it in order to fulfill their communication needs. Legality of VoIP comes into question only when some one exploits its benefits for illegal commercial purposes. PTA?s stance appears to be based on fairness and its determination to eliminate grey market telephony needs to be supported by all players.
.....................
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ashar Iqbal" <s.asha...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:37 AM
To: <pakistan...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Adeel Azmat" <adeel...@gmail.com>; <telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com>; <pasha...@yahoogroups.com>; <pres...@pasha.org.pk>; <sal...@super.net.pk>
Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Re: [pashagroup] PTA Civil Action
Afzal Anwar
--
Afzal Anwar
Rehan Allah Wala
allowed for voice traffic, it is 100% legal.
The law is so confusing, that it needs to be cleared out in black and white.
Rehan
> Ifwe are successful and wedo not settle and take PTA to the cleaners, this problem will go away
> once and for all. Otherwise it will remain a festering sore for the rest of our lives and the
> generations to come. And once you do this to a government entity, everyone else will respect you
> for as long as you are around.
>
>
>
> Any lawyers out there crazy enough to take this on.
>
>
>
> Jawwad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 3/5/09, Rehan Allah Wala <re...@supertec.com> wrote:
>
> From: Rehan Allah Wala <re...@supertec.com>
> Subject: [pashagroup] VOIP in Pakistan
> To: "Adeel Azmat" <adeel...@gmail.com>, telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com,
> telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
> Cc: pakistan...@yahoogroups.com, pasha...@yahoogroups.com,
> pres...@pasha.org.pk, sal...@super.net.pk
> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 3:50 PM
> Dear Adeel and others,
>
> I have been watching this tread going a LONG way and wanted to add very small note here.
>
> I have NOT read the whole thread as there are TOO many emails on here, but here are my 2
> cents.
>
> The site internetcalls. net software uses vpn already and it is not going to get blocked if u use
> > (say internetcalls. com etc), will that be blocked now? 2. I use x-lite to have my office work
> phone
> > with me so I can make calls from there as well AFTER i have connected to the VPN, should that
> > be affected?
> > Thanks.
> > Adeel
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@ gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would second the comments of Mr. Faez that there should be sampling. Combating "gray
> > traffic" means catching those so calledcompanies who are providing illegal ILD/DLD and for
> > sure they generate continuous voice traffic.
>
> Rehan Ahmed AllahWala
> Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTal k/Email: Rehan@Rehan. com
> http://www.supertec .com/ - Internet Telephony Solutions
> Http://www.DIDX. net - DID Number Market Place.
> Don't Remember Me ? Visit http://www.Rehan. com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
> By Gandhi.
>
> "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." - Gandhi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
> MARKETPLACE
>
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
>
>
> Recent Activity
> * 3
> New Members
> * 1
> New Files
> Visit Your Group
> Y! Groups blog
> The place to go
> to stay informed
> on Groups news!
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Dog Lovers Group
> Connect and share with
> dog owners like you
>
> Group Charity
> Be the Change
> A citizen movement
> to change the world
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> __,_._,___
Rehan Ahmed AllahWala
Rehan Allah Wala
I went to this url. but it is now showing this text, can u send us an screen shot please jpg
image would be greatly helpful.
Rehan
Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTalk/Email: Re...@Rehan.com
Http://www.DIDX.net - DID Number Market Place.
Mahmood Ahmed
It is still there, third para bottom up. This is from Mr. Kashif Ghafoor AD
(vigilance). I have attached an image of 60% zoom to capture PTA header. The
text is already there in my previous post.
Regards,
Mahmood
--------------------------------------------------
To: <telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com>;
<pakistan...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Adeel Azmat" <adeel...@gmail.com>; <pasha...@yahoogroups.com>;
Ashar Iqbal
- and it makes absolutely no sense at all if you read the Law.
Ashar
> Rehan Ahmed AllahWala
> Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTalk/Email: Re...@Rehan.com
> http://www.supertec.com/ - Internet Telephony Solutions
> Http://www.DIDX.net - DID Number Market Place.
> Don't Remember Me ? Visit http://www.Rehan.com
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win."
> By Gandhi.
>
> "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."
> - Gandhi
>
> __._,_.___
> Messages in this topic (9) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
> MARKETPLACE
> ________________________________
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format
> to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> Recent Activity
>
> 5
> New Members
> 1
> New Files
>
> Visit Your Group
> Group Charity
>
> GiveWell.net
>
> Identifying the
>
> best non-profits
>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Everyday Wellness Zone
>
> Check out featured
>
> healthy living groups.
>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> w/ John McEnroe
>
> Join the All-Bran
>
> Day 10 Club.
>
> .
> __,_._,___
Shaharyar Khan
justified it i ?
long ago PTA released a "VOIP SERVICES" Public information
Bulletin .......which says; (in 2nd paragraph)
"Under the present technology neutral licensing regime, VoIP services
can be provided by Local Loop (LL), Long Distance International (LDI)
and Cellular mobile Operators licensed by PTA. It may also be
clarified that IP bandwidth provided by ISPs / DSL operators is for
"data" only and it cannot be used for "voice" i.e making calls."
the funny part is they are separating VOICE from DATA whereas voice =
data (technically speaking).
conclusion: PTA says VOIP is such a good thing but you don't deserve
to use because you are underprivileged one :)
__________________
Rao Khan
www.nethawk.com.pk
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
> >> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> >> you win."
> >> By Gandhi.
>
> >> "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live
> >> forever." - Gandhi
>
> > Rehan Ahmed AllahWala
> > Msn/Yahoo/GoogleTalk/Email: Re...@Rehan.com
> >http://www.supertec.com/- Internet Telephony Solutions
> > Don't Remember Me ? Visithttp://www.Rehan.com
Rehan Allah Wala
use a clearer language, and go ahead with that ad for telling the masses that they are not
breaking the law.
Even I think that PASHA can also put that ad in the paper, if that is what pasha thinks is the
meaning.
Rehan
> Messages in this topic (18) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
> MARKETPLACE
>
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
>
>
> Recent Activity
> * 5
> New Members
> * 1
> New Files
> Visit Your Group
> All-Bran
> 10 Day Challenge
> Join the club and
> feel the benefits.
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Everyday Wellness Zone
> Check out featured
> healthy living groups.
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Auto Enthusiast Zone
> Auto Enthusiast Zone
> Discover auto groups
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> __,_._,___
Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
Sources from different ISPs have confirm that PTA is Blocking client
IPs now in full swing where as demanding other personal information of
client in detail. Please confirm if yo have any written source from
PTA side. Also confirm if the same demand from PTA is entertained from
all ISPs as my IP is also blocked due to only use of MSN & Yahoo
Messenger.
Best Regards,
Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
Haris Shamsi
Sent from my mobile device
Inspirex
- Inspirex
Tee Emm
number of IP addresses of end customers were blocked in the past few
days and most of them were end PC-to-PC voip cases.
The Naurus trigger happy team is probably trying to justify their
existence and what was being predicted at the time when this facility
was being set up is happening now.
(http://pakng.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/ldi-backed-anti-voip-move-now-more-evil/)
-T
Salman Najeeb
Regards,
Salman.
Inspirex
- Inspirex
Bilal Khan
Blocking the IP goes back to mid-of Ramadan when they actually started
blocking of IP addresses of people who were involved in either
termination\origination of gray telephony, or were just ordinary users of
voice over IP, which included users of Yahoo messenger, MSN messenger and
other similar applications. I am aware that Skype as of yet has managed to
escape the eyes of a authority.
Referring to a blog post by TM where it is referred to as a more evil stance
by LDI operators, I agree that it has actually now being developed into a
full-fledged evil. Although keeping things balanced in this conversation I
would like to mention that people whose IP addresses have been blocked are
the ones using static IP facilities from their ISP. The point that the
authority makes here is that not every ordinary ISP user requires a static
IP address which is a fair argument on their end, and they are only
requesting the ISPs to block the static IP's.
I am not a supporter of the authority in any way and I personally disagree
with what they have been doing and condemn it in the strongest possible
words. I consider this to be an invasion of privacy on till they have the
proof that one of the of IPs that they have blocked is being used for
mala-fide intentions or being used for grey telephony. There have been
victims of the authority all around the country there they have raided
offices and have unsuccessfully done anything except for bringing a bad name
to the person or the company which were raided by them.
Coming back to the main issue of blocking the IP address as I said that
started in mid of Ramadan and then it was basically stopped for a few months
now I am hearing again that because there has been an increase in grey
telephony because of the increase in APC and rates for incoming traffic in
Pakistan, those who were in this business have started offering the services
again. Video techniques have now been employed by people who are doing this
like using VPN servers and SSL ports which the authority is unable to
monitor as of yet. Therefore they have no other option but to block ports
which they fear are being used for illegal telephony.
God bless Pakistan
Arsalan Ahmed
ISPs few months back and now they have started this blocking. If its a
PTA policy then it should be publicize properly (like SIM registration
compaign) to all whole internet user community so that everyone should
now about it. Its quite difficult from ISPs point of view to educate
all its customers about this new change.
I have serious concerns about such PTA step but even if its IN-
EVITABLE than it should be properly publicized and prior to
blocking........ a notice should be issued to conerns accordingly (to
avoid any SURPRISE AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR)
On Feb 27, 11:32 am, Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
have install on my server ( The aggregation Point ) and after blocking
my IP, my Browsing was also stopped. I am totally amazed on this
situation and i am trying to terminate the link as this IP is totally
useless for me.
I am also thinking to switch on another ISP Connection with additional
IP Pool. For my previous IP which is Block from PTA, may be that ISP
can negotiate with PTA to release that IP as maybe this IP is also
useless for them and they will inform to PTA about my termination as
well.
I think PTCL is giving Dynamic IP and clients can use VOIP on Dynamic
IP as package would be less expensive and without and limitation as as
soon as i will disconnect, my new IP would be automatically assign to
me.
Best Regards,
Muhammad Anees Ur Rahman
Haris Shamsi
automated manner and on clients having dynamic ips as well
Bilal Khan
what PTA is saying they just tend to put it as they have only blocked static
IPs which were being used for voice over IP. Now I think that it would be
unjust to say that they are not blocking dynamic IPs which I am aware that
they are. I appreciate you adding this comment.
Although voice over IP is such a broad field that you can't just block
everything that is voice and you should not actually block everything which
is voice because at least I consider this to be pretty discriminatory, why
not just block Internet all along. This is a total different debate though.
Bilal Khan
messenger etc. etc. For voice all day today, just to see if they are going
to block me or not. I would also be originating some calls using Yahoo
messenger Skype and other facilities that I have available to me, just to
see if they block me or not. I will definitely be posting the results if I
do get blocked, I will be using wire shark to monitor all the packets and
will be posting a link where I will have all of my logs posted.
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:17 PM
To: telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com
Wasim Baig
I disagree on the static ip blocking statement. It is happening in automated manner and on clients having dynamic ips as well
Blocking SSL is just plain inane. Can someone get the Authority to comment on this? Whats next, blocking SSH?
Dr Sb, we though perhaps PTA would become a little less autocratic and militant in its policing of the country's Internet under your tenure.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case.
Faisal Khan
Any IP that PTA detects using VoIP is automatically blocked. PTCL and TWA for that matter both have been active in blocking such IPs, which in most cases are dynamic IPs and that the next user in line to get this dynamically (blocked) IP assigned, wonders what the heck is wrong with his/her internet connection.
Its a plain mess if you ask me.
Aftab Siddiqui
--
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
Faez Itrat
Haris Shamsi
list. Please take notice of this and call the session of industry
forum on this.
Wahaj Sb can you channelize this ?
Aftab Siddiqui
Haris Shamsi
or static IP.
I don't think (as faisal khan has mentioned) that naurus cant block
skype/yahoo/msn type of voice communication - as identification of
traffic is happening on port basis, not via DPI
Right faisal ?