Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to block illegal VOIP

[Wahaj us Siraj/MGMT]

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.

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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

 

[Faisal Khan]

I think that is a very sane and pragmatic reply to PTA. Bravo!

[Sheikh Usman N.]

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!

--
Sheikh Usman N.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight with you, then you win"
-Gandhi

[AdnanShafiq]

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

[Zaeem Arshad]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM, AdnanShafiq <adnancha...@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.



Regards

--
Zaeem

[Sameer Bokhari]

 

could this possibly be one of the reasons..?

 

"

Army telecom firm denies connection in Mumbai attacks

 

SCO says it is an internet service provider, so if a client misuses the service, it does not mean SCO is involved."

[mumai...@gmail.com]

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 ***

-----Original Message-----
From: AdnanShafiq <adnancha...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:06:00
To: Telecom Grid Pakistan<telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to block illegal VOIP

[Usman]

A pretty good answer, good work

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 -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Sheikh Usman N.]

@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.

[Shaharyar Khan]

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<http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pa...>

>
> > 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-gr...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 3:00 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to

[Sheikh Usman N.]

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.

[Usman]

Are the also mentioning the exact software tooo???

> -Gandhi- Hide quoted text -

[Aftab Siddiqui]

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

[Sheikh Usman N.]

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...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sheikh Usman N.]

Well I learnt this through a news item in Daily Times today. It was written in there.

[Shaharyar Khan]

PTA expect too much from software!!!

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
>

[Shaharyar Khan]

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
>

[Faisal Khan]

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?

[Rehan Allahwala]

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?

--
Sent from my mobile device

Rehan AllahWala
http://www.SuperTec.com - Tomorrow's Technology, Today.
http://www.didx.net - World's Biggest Number Trading Platform.

[Shaharyar Khan]

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?
>

> Rehan AllahWalahttp://www.SuperTec.com- Tomorrow's Technology, Today.http://www.didx.net- World's Biggest Number Trading Platform.

[SYED ZAIDI]

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

[Faisal Khan]

Can you say "LDI Mafia"  :)

[Saqib Ilyas]

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.

--
Muhammad Saqib Ilyas
PhD Student, Computer Science and Engineering
Lahore University of Management Sciences

[A. Sajjad Zaidi]

So in other words, every frame needs to be monitored and such meticulous monitoring costs money? Maybe the SMS tax has the same rationale behind it.

Sajjad
http://sajjadzaidi.com

[Faisal Khan]

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:

[Haris Shamsi]

Faisal I second your previous comment, it because of the LDI's
pressure- the naurus installations were also funded by LDIs (to my
knowledge). Without going into the debate that to run voip one needs a
licence or not, there is no way that Isps can install such equipment
at their own cost. Why not LDIs come forward and install these at isps
level ? If they can fund the project on egress why not at each and
every isp :)

[Zaeem Arshad]

I guess there was some pun intended..no?

[Mansoor Adenwala]

:) i would think so.

and a very apt one at that.

--
-mansoor
I'm at.:.
http://www.wordofmansoor.com  - My thoughts, my life

[mumai...@gmail.com]

If I agree with you. Everyone here in pakistan should expect some security tax by govt in the name of useless police pickets.

*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

---

From: Saqib Ilyas
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:47:14 +0500
To: <telecom-gr...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Industry Response to PTA's direction to ISPs to block illegal VOIP

[Saqib Ilyas]

Yes, it was 100% pure pun.

[Shaharyar Khan]

Saqib:
why incoming calls in UAE also high ? same security reasons i heard
Dubai is safest place. isn't it?
Stop advocating big brother! the same reason eitalasat is both
countries exist :)

[Shaharyar Khan]

Saqib:
why incoming calls in UAE also high ? same security reasons i heard
Dubai is safest place. isn't it?
Stop advocating big brother! the same reason eitalasat is both
countries exist :)


On Jun 20, 7:35 am, Faisal Khan <babushk...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Arsalan Ahmed]

It seems quite logical that who is behind that grey traffic panorama. T

[shahid]

I want to share my thoughts related to VOIP/illegal VOIP or rates
changes

There are several views about rate changes of VOIP calls during last
year

1- One point is that industry needs money, its about macro economy
bcoz we all know about the situation of LDIs before rate change.
2- One view is related to individual who has to pay for the calls.
3- Another point is related to the progress in order to augment the
end user's comfort for example if we compare rates of calls to India &
Pakistan (similar to the second point)

Now for illegal VOIP, as we all know most of the or all the illegal
VOIP GWs use GSM SIMs or sometimes E1s for terminating their calls,
and PTA normally gets the information about the SIMs used by those GWs
but unfortunately the numbers ( or the SIMs) are not registered to
original user bla bla.... We have already seen in past that PTA took
some steps in order to block these type of SIMs but unfortunately our
authority (PTA) could not find a proper solution or could not
implement the proper solution.... bcoz to me if the SIMs are issued
with proper record then it will be easy to locate the illegal GW or
the person using that GW...... When I hear the add from PTA on radio
like " it is illegal to use the SIM which is not registered to you"
then I start thinking what is the use of playing this, you have the
resources/authority to block these SIMs go and do that instead you are
playing the message on radio and that is listened by the nation having
such literacy rate that many of them don't know what is the meaning of
this......

Secondly, to my knowledge PTA has invested a lot for blocking/
detecting illegal VOIP on international links but still asking the
ISPs to block that. As we all know most of the times ISPs don't have
proper equipment to block VOIP, normally port blocking at transport
layer using ACLs etc. and we all know that will not work in case of
illegal VOIP players unless you go to layers above transport layer.
There are various tunneling methods as well as VPN solutions available
for hiding the data so practically most of the ISPs don't have such
facility or can't bear such load on normal devices.

I was going through a document from PTA mentioning something like "VPN/
Encryption is not allowed on DSL ....." , I am not sure about the
thoughts of policy makers but I think that was for illegal VOIP so,
why not we remove VOIP from our courses or VOIP study only allowed for
a limited group :)


For Telecommunication's Big Brother!!
I think PTA/We want to keep our self limited to a certain level.....
Problems will not be solved unless we increase our knowledge/skills
instead of only relying on the equipment like Naurus.


Regards,






and at the same time blocking illegal VOIP