Boomerang86
Got FUD?
Premium
join:2002-10-18
VampireState
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·VOIPo
·Time Warner VOIP
| Interesting quote in the linked article
"The presumption [of the Internet] is that you're fully connected," Cerf said. Any attempts to block certain application types or types of content, he said, "will destroy the utility of the Net."
WAKE UP!! This has already been going on for YEARS; witness port 25 blocks by many major ISPs. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | said by Boomerang86  : witness port 25 blocks by many major ISPs. It's not the same thing: the reason for blockage matters.
Blocking ports for security purposes (SMTP, NETBIOS)
Blocking ports for ToS enforcement (HTTP on res cable)
Blocking ports to kill your competition (VoIP)
These aren't all "equivalent"
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to Boomerang86
And/or Shaw's decision to throttle Bit Torrent traffic. |
|
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Interesting comparison... I wouldn't have thought of that. |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | reply to Steve
They are not the same thing, but they both fit into the catagory in the quote:
quote:
...attempts to block certain application types or types of content...
|
|
Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs:
1 edit | Blocking
If my ISP starts blocking my VoIP they will hear from me and everyone else who has my VoIP and ISP.
Mass complaints do make a difference! |
|
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD | reply to Steve
Re: Interesting quote in the linked article
said by Steve :These aren't all "equivalent" You are correct, Sir! |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
1 edit | reply to Chris 313
Re: Blocking
said by Chris 313 :If my ISP starts blocking my VoIP they were hear from me and everyone else who has my VoIP and ISP. Mass complaints do make a difference! Ok, now try and find out how many people on your ISP have VoIP, now figure out how many total people your ISP has and i'm betting not even 2% of their customers are using VoIP, now add to that the amt of people that aren't smart enough to think it's their ISP blocking something and just think it's their VoIP provider being crappy, and then deciding to switch to their ISP's own VoIP offering. You'll find you don't have a too large of a "mass" left to complain.
You'll quickly find people saying "everyone complain!, everyone complain!" is alot easier then realizing how few people this currently effects, and how many of them don't care enough to complain.
--
Forum Posts:6000 |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to Steve
Re: Interesting quote in the linked article
I think Steve's mistaken.
EVERYTHING a business does is in some sense meant "to kill your competition". From doing a good job, to contributing (publicly) to charity. Certainly, I think the real reason for Port 25 blocks is to keep people wed to the ISP's services on all fronts.
Now with VoIP blocking we have the slippery slope I first complained about with Port 25 blocking.
If we accept allowing ISP's to filter the kind of traffic they decide, we've ceded control of our Internet experience.
SMTP Relays are dangerous. Gone. Servers against TOS. Gone. P2P use is questionable. Gone. VoIP should come from US, not the other guys. GONE.
It is the same. If we don't hold our ISPs to being Internet Service Providers, they will all, inexorably, turn into AOL. And then we'll be safe.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Karl Bode
And port 80 blocks.
And port 21 blocks.
And port 6699 blocks (remember Napster, anyone?).
And news servers throttled to 128 kbps
And "invisible ceilings" on usage.
Cerf's Internet is already dead.
--
The revolution will not go better with Coke. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 |  reply to B
EXACTLY. Brilliant observation. |
|
drakkkar
join:2003-02-07
Houston, TX
| To be truly insidious
To be truly insidious as an ISP, I would simply occasionally block VOIP (for testing purposes of course). That way they would simply think thier VOIP was crappy, and would likely never make the connection...
By the time a few techies complained loud enough, and attempted lawsuits - Which I would likely win, hey I was only testing after all, and the contract with my customers never stated I would guarentee coverage for VOIP. Well, by that time, I would have sucessfully labeled VOIP as unstable, and would keep all the voice on my own copper.
--
~Age and Treachery will always overcome Youth and Skill.~ |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| This is from November 2004
So, if SBC (for example) was actually doing this, as reported in typical "I am a blogger so I am GOD!" fashion, why hasn't there been a massive outcry from all Vonage customers on SBC lines? This entire site would be ablaze with thousands of outraged posts and posters. It's been almost three months since this particular Chicken Little ran through the countryside.
Methinks Vonage protests too much. Could it be a distraction from their crummy service of late? I mean, if it works for the Federal government...
--
The revolution will not go better with Coke. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to B
Re: Interesting quote in the linked article
quote:
Certainly, I think the real reason for Port 25 blocks is to keep people wed to the ISP's services on all fronts.
They block it because the vast majority of people don't need it unblocked, and it has a high potential for abuse. Blame the abusers and trojan authors, not the ISP. The ISP would probably be more than happy to have its customers not consuming their mail server resources. The less people funneling their stuff through their SMTP server, the less resources it requires to run!
This is a service you're subscribing to. They don't even have to allow you to be able to accept an incoming connection on any port if they don't want you to. And for the most part, despite all the legalize in the TOS, the vast majority of ISPs look the other way when it comes to running services. They just want to have clauses in writing so that they can stop abuse if it becomes a problem. I expect the clampers to come down harder as competition drives the price of service down.
But yes, speak with your wallet, go with a company that allows the things you care about. That was one of the biggest reasons I chose to stick with DSLExtreme, despite the fact that I could have saved $15/month for the same speeds by switching to SBC. They explicitly allow me to run my personal services.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to Steve
said by Steve : said by Boomerang86 : witness port 25 blocks by many major ISPs. It's not the same thing: the reason for blockage matters. Blocking ports for security purposes (SMTP, NETBIOS) Blocking ports for ToS enforcement (HTTP on res cable) Blocking ports to kill yoru competition (VoIP) These aren't all "equivalent" I think he ment the blocking of out going port 25 and your isp forceing you to use their email for out going and incoming. Blockig incoming server ports fine but be upfront about it dont claim unlimited then limit me. Blocking out going ports because you dont want some one useing another mail server not fine.
I play rubies of eventide a mmorpg recently a new player comes in who was playing for around 2 weeks give or take and suddenly he can no longer connect to the servers even the log in server. We tried every thing possible to get it working for him on his end nothing worked. he called his isp they denied the blocking of out going ports. Ran some other test useing a proxy i set up on my comp and he got right in when he went through my proxy. Turns out the isp thought port 3141 was a mail server and blocked the out going port. They stated that he was not allowed to use any other mail accounts other than theirs or web based. He cancled his dsl servers through them and got a cable isp. Isps are now playing dirty pool preventing their customers from useing services not provided by them. His isp put advertisements at the end of each email message.
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :And port 80 blocks. And port 21 blocks. And port 6699 blocks (remember Napster, anyone?). And news servers throttled to 128 kbps And "invisible ceilings" on usage. Cerf's Internet is already dead. This is one reason to think outside the box when shopping for broadband. I'm on my what, like eighth year working for small ISPs. Every place I've worked at has catered more to people who know what "we'll let you run a server" means. It's a smaller market, but it's much more fun on both my side and the customer's side. Blocking VoIP may go OK for these guys on residential customers, but I have to wonder how this would go over with small business customers paying hefty fees for IP PBX type services...
--
Bush/Cheney '04! - Scared Straight
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." |
|
Dominokat
"Hi"
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Why I don't do it
This kind of stuff is the reason why I won't switch to VOIP. I'm usually an early adopter with new technology and gizmos but with this particular thing, I can't feel comfortable with it being dependable like I can with my cellular phone and POT service.
The dust needs to settle between providers of VOIP and the ISP providers before the technology can take off. Things are getting ridiculous with Bells and Cable stifling "competition." |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to Chris 313
Re: Blocking
said by Chris 313 :If my ISP starts blocking my VoIP they will hear from me and everyone else who has my VoIP and ISP. Mass complaints do make a difference! So do single complaints if the person makeing it has a good understanding of consumer protection and contract law.
example
My isp blocked my incoming port 80. Running a web server was totaly against their tos posted on their web site. But heres the thing at time of install i had no internet and their tos was not provided to me at the time of sign up and install. Only things about tos and the like was a url on the papper i signed nothing more. Isue this is what is considered in my state and county a blind contract blind contract are not binding contracts. Essentialy what this ment is i have no tos or any thing else that is legaly binding. So 20 minutes after my port 80 was blocked and i called them on it it was unblocked. I was the only one who complained but i knew my legal rights i knew the applicable laws and gave them a url to read them self and pointed out the proper sections of the law.
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC | Legal
Wouldn't this run up against anti-trust/anti-competitive laws?
When I signed my parents up for their cable modem service (Northland cable) I was explicitly told they block Vonage because they're trying to roll out their own service. |
|
digiblur
Got Sipura?
Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: Interesting quote in the linked article
said by RadioDoc :And port 80 blocks. And port 21 blocks. And port 6699 blocks (remember Napster, anyone?). And news servers throttled to 128 kbps And "invisible ceilings" on usage. Cerf's Internet is already dead. You are talking about blocked inbound. Not outbound. The SIP communications in my network are all outgoing even if its a incoming call.
--
FWD#297248 |
|
