 |
 | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | Re: Interesting quote in the linked article 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 | |
|
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: Interesting quote in the linked article 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...
| |
|
| | 
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD | said by Steve :These aren't all "equivalent" You are correct, Sir! | |
|
| | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| 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 |  Re: Interesting quote in the linked article
| |
|
| | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 | |
|
| | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by B :I think Steve's mistaken. Curiously, Steve thinks he's not  Certainly, I think the real reason for Port 25 blocks is to keep people wed to the ISP's services on all fronts. Oh gasp, no way: ISPs hate the extra load on their mailservers that 25/tcp blocking requires - it increases their infrastructure costs, makes customers unhappy, etc. I think every one would rather not deal with it, but the spam problem has forced their hand.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
|
| | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: Interesting quote in the linked article If you get a chance, maybe you could walk me through the logic, because it never makes sense to me.
A. ISP 1's customers, or malware bots on their machines, start sending spam to thousands of people through open relays on OTHER networks run by OTHER ISPs, for example ISP 2.
B. The complaints start building, and eventually ISP 2 says to ISP 1, "hey, your customer is a spammer -- stop it".
C. ISP 1, rather than deal with the naughty customer, AND rather than telling ISP 2 "close your frickin' relay", decides to globally block port 25 and stop Joe Worker from using JoesCompany's mail server to send mail!
What is the incentive, economic or otherwise, for ISP 1 to block port 25? A sense of responsibility to the Internet culture? What? It certainly doesn't reduce spam coming IN to ISP 1's customers.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | 
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| 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 | |
|
| 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | And/or Shaw's decision to throttle Bit Torrent traffic. | |
|
| | 
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Re: Interesting quote in the linked article Interesting comparison... I wouldn't have thought of that. | |
|
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| 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. | |
|
| | | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| 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. 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." | |
|
| | | | indigo
join:1999-08-22
Covina, CA | Re: Interesting quote in the linked article I only wish the ISPs around here were so enlightened. Here's it's a choice between Adelphia or the incompetant rural LEC's 1.5M/512k DSL for $150/month. | |
|
| | | 
digiblur
Got Sipura?
Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana
| 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 | |
|
| audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
3 edits | said by Boomerang86 :"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. What is going on is the companies that are doing traditional phones are paying reciprocal compensation to other carriers. Vonage got the FCC to exempt it( all VoIP) from those fees by classifying it as data. But the problem with that is the FCC did not answer what happens when the call goes into the regular phone system and the cost of doing business that includes 911 service. A traditional phone company has to provide 911 and other services at VoIP dose not(911 is voluntary for VoIP).
If ILECs and others go VOIP it will still pay the fees to all carriers that where around when the ISP remand order was approved that stated if you were flowing traffic by the first quarter 2001 then you can bill recip comp at $0.0007/minute instead of the normal rate( around $0.005/minute) for data traffic. This has allowed the small and mid size carriers( with a network) to match the regional Bells in price that is offered to the retail market and in some cases it has allowed them to offer a lower price. Some small and mid size carriers that I work with have lost $50,000 to $100,000 per month on this issue of data traffic and who's the owner of it. The new check amount is $500 to $10,000 or more. This is a killer for the small guys. Even is they are a rural ILEC.
Vonage and other new carriers that were not around when the ISP remand order was adopted are exempt from any fees.
Now the ILECs are feeling the loss of revenue to other VoIP carriers.
The FCC a few months back removed the growth cap from the ISP remand order( growth cap of 10% per year on data traffic). Now a carriers can bill for the full mount of minutes instead of a percentage of minutes for data traffic.
Under the law a carrier is allowed to not except traffic from a carrier that is not willing to negotiate but this is on the edge. So lets see what's the ruling
I am all for the small guys out there ILEC or CLEC they don't have the big bucks that the big carriers have. | |
|
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! | |
|
| 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
1 edit | 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 | |
|
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| 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 | |
|
| |
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| Re: Blocking said by novaflare : 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. Well then you got lucky, they had no legal reason as to why they would of had to unblock port 80 for you contract or no contract. If you were in a non-contract service they could of told you "well don't like it then cancel" and if you were in a service that had a contract they merely could of told you you were allowed to quit.
--
Forum Posts:6000 | |
|
| | 
tester5
@rr.com | And they have a right to refuse you service....., since you Don't have a binding contract!
Works both ways....! | |
|
| noweb4u
Premium
join:2003-03-26
Madison Heights, MI | No they wont, they just shut of your phone! hahahaha!
(Now you see the beauty of their plan!) | |
|
|
anon3
@rr.com | It is NOT a Requirement that an ISP allow Other companies services to work over their Pipe! In some instances, it is even a violation of the T.O.S. to do so....
So what are you complaining about? | |
|
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. | |
|
| cooperaaaron
join:2004-04-10
Joliet, IL | Re: This is from November 2004 I had issues with using Vonage on SBC's DSL service, but when I went to Comcast, I had very few issues. But I do think that some services could be limiting Vonage's service, anything is possible.... | |
|
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." | |
|
| nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Re: Why I don't do it So you'd rather pay the pigopolists?
Kinda like negotiating with terrorists IMHO. | |
|
| | 
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | Re: Why I don't do it SBC is actually cheaper than Vonage in my area. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Why I don't do it Post your monthly fee and features. I have to see this.
And don't forget the taxes, surcharges, fees and whatever else is thrown on your bill. | |
|
| | |
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Vonage's cheapest unlimited plan: 24.99 (plus unknown taxes, fees, etc, of course)
My SBC service: 22.66 (AFTER including all taxes, fees, etc.)
Features: dial-tone, 911.
Given that my answering machine covers both caller id and voice mail, and my cell phone covers any long distance I might need every once in a blue moon, SBC's lookin pretty good.
I probably could switch over to Vonage's 14.99 plan, which only gives you 500 minutes, but why deal with limited VOIP when an unlimited land-line is cheaper than unlimited VOIP? Two dollars more and I could get a bunch of features I most likely wouldn't use, and eat into my upstream bandwidth for phone calls to boot. No thanks. Few bucks less and I could get a limited usage account, and features I'm not interested in, and again use my upstream. Think I'll stick with my land-line.
Now, if the 14.99 plan was unlimited.. It'd be a different story.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Licenses should be per user, Ditch Norton! Get F-Prot! | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Why I don't do it Except adjacent prefixes, I'm guessing you can't call anywhere in the DFW area with that plan.
And I'm surprised you spend that much for so little. Don't they offer a "life line" subscription that is even cheaper? | |
|
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. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| Regulation or no regulation I wish these Vonage people would figure out the whole regulation thing. If you don't want to be regulated stop filing comments with the FCC. The FTC is probably more suited to such a thing. The FCC will have to recover the costs of enforcing network neutrality with VoIP and they have to get the money somewhere. VoIP bills are the logical choice for this.
Dumbasses.
--
"The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission." - WSJ 2005/01/21 | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
SquareSlinky
Premium
join:2004-05-25
Tampa, FL
·Verizon FIOS
·ViaTalk
| Lawsuits Lawsuits will fix this. They can block competition, yet offer the same service? So in turn it is price fixing. Block the pepsi truck from getting to the store, so Coke can charge more money at the store. (maybe not the best example, but you know what I mean)
For those that say Vonage sucks, I have had it for 2 years now and it works great. It is has its issues, but nothing more than a regular more expensive land line does. | |
|
|
| mymac
join:2002-03-02
Parker, CO
| Re: Simply put YES, VONAGE DOES SUCK! WHY YOU MAY ASK? I HAVE BEEN WAITING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER FOR MY NUMBER TRANSFER!! I HAVE THE STUPID THING HOOKED UP TO 1 PHONE LINE. THEY KEEP TELLING ME THAT THEY ARE ESCALTING WITH THE CARRIER! I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO SWITCH PHONE NUMBERS IT'S GOOD, BUT DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR EXISTING PHONE MUNBER!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA | Re: Simply put no need to shout. Vonage has no control over the number transfer process - its yet another way the pigopolists at the bells use to try to keep their dominant position. By playing along with it your are no better than the pigopolists.
noz | |
|
| | |
| | |
darksoft
join:2003-04-22
East Wenatchee, WA
| Pffftttt. Sorry, blocking port 25 is BS IMnsHO. It means you are running a shoddy service. Granted, a vast majority of people will not need this but as a tech that runs his own servers at an across town ISP, if port 25 was blocked so I could not send thru any of my servers I would dump that shitty ISP in a second.
Quit running open relays and you won't have this problem. | |
|
LazMan
join:2003-03-26
Angus, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Vonage asked for it... And now they got it.
Vonage went to great pains to have itself declared an "application provider" not a telco; thus not being required to meet telco guidelines for life-safety, interconnect, and tarrifing; as well as for tax reasons.
Now the other side of that choice comes out - since, by their own definition, they (Vonage) are providing an application; I'm not aware of any law preventing ISP's from blocking them. It's no different then ISP's that throttle/block P2P or SMTP traffic. It's the ISP's facilities, they can technically do what they want. If the consumer doesn't like it, they are free to change ISPs.
Just my $0.02 cdn...
Heath | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| Have we thought this through? I'm not a SIP protocol expert but can't the VOIP industry engineer their way out of this? Why can't the VOIP router be programmed to try different ports and different destination addresses until it's able to communicate?
It's a cat and mouse game that an ISP could still win, given enough resources, but as soon as they go to this much effort, wouldn't it be easier to establish the deliberate intent of blocking services? | |
|
| 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
1 edit | Re: Have we thought this through? Many routers now examine the content of the packet to determine if it's a VoIP packet or a P2P, etc... The functionnality is called NBAR.
Cisco routers are now able to recognize Skype traffic, even though the data in the IP packet is (I think) encrypted. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| Re: Have we thought this through? I find it hard to believe that an encrypted packet on any random port can be "recognized". I read Cisco's claims and it still appears to be tightly coupled with the port used by the particular protocol. Cisco further claims that "new" applications can recognized by updating rules using a new "packet description language". This can be done without an IOS upgrade.
If the FCC doesn't step in, VOIP should immediately begin improving their router and back-end software to use a wide variety of random ports until the call can be successfully negotiated. Although this might be tough, given the processing capabilities of the early VOIP routers, they should also consider encrypting the packets with random keys to ensure that the contents of the packets remain ambiguous.
In my opinion, these actions would make it much more difficult for an ISP to classify and deny such traffic. So much so that it's probably not worth the trouble of going to such extremes. If they do, it would be much more obvious that the ISP is explicitly attempting to block such services. If the ISP's routers are busy, the strain of trying to investigate every packet that's not on a well-defined port might be counter productive.
If VOIP providers can do these things, I think it would be far easier for the ISP to just change their TOS and let customers know that they don't guarantee that these services will operate properly over their network. | |
|
longshot94
join:2004-03-10
Holland, OH
| you guys dont get it do you. Working for a large ISP myself i can tell you that SBC, Verizon, or whoever can decide what traffic they allow on their network. The reason is it's their network and they own it, If they decide they don't want Vonage on their network then they can block it without fear of anyone (even the FCC) Nowhere in their terms does it state they have to provide unrestricted access (Full Port usage)
Nor does it state you have to stay one of their customers unless you signed a contract stating so. | |
|
| cngr96
join:2005-03-05
El Paso, TX
| Re: you guys dont get it do you. No, I think most of us do get it, but in many areas there is not a choice of broadband providers. Most do not meet the DSL distance spec, and are forced to use cable, assuming that it is available in the area. That is why cable companies are regulated, because they have a "given" monopoly is an area. So, since they are the only choice for broadband, should they not be more customer friendly... regulated?... oops, I forgot, they are the cable company, scratch customer friendly... | |
|
terracell
join:2004-04-16
Livonia, MI | vonage And the vonage blocks my ip from my computer disabling my website, my remote access, my remote desktop. It isolates the user from the internet. Linux users, is this just a windows thing? | |
|
|
|
|
Carriers Blocking Vonage?
It's not the big guys!
