dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9229
share rss forum feed


war6763

@suddenlink.net

Confirmed: Suddenlink is blocking Usenet ports!!

Looks like Suddenlink is blocking inbound access to NNTP ports (119, 433). They would limit inbound if they noticed activity on these ports, which meant a slowdown of inbound bandwidth.

I upgraded my Usenet server to include SSL encryption and now I'm running at maximum speed for my tier (10Mb/sec). Funny how they refuse to accept that they're blocking ports...

For reference, I'm using powerusenet as my provider.


war6763

@suddenlink.net
Just as a comparison... I just hit 2.4 MB/sec (Not Mega-BITS). Stupid Suddenlink.


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
reply to war6763
Cox used to completely block inbound port 119. I mention this because my area used to be owned by them.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240


lazl0

@nc.us
reply to war6763
For some time now I have suspected that some form of bandwidth shaping/capping was going on with usenet services. However, over the last few months if I use suddenlink's usenet server I can get my full bandwidth (12Mb) utilized for long sustained periods, at the right times of the day (when the network is not flooded).

war6763, I believe you meant port 443 not 433? Port 443 is the standard HTTP SSL port. NNTP encryption is normally over port 563 but many offer over 443 as well. My outside usenet provider supports 22, 23, 53, 80, 110, 443, 563, 119 ports. I try to use the ports that are nonstandard for NNTP traffic as well as the least likely used by other user's bandwidth such as 80, 443, 119.


lazl0

@nc.us
reply to gatorkram
Quite odd, I'm in Greenville and had Cox and used all three (east, west, central) of their available usenet servers without a single problem for a few years.


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
said by lazl0 :

Quite odd, I'm in Greenville and had Cox and used all three (east, west, central) of their available usenet servers without a single problem for a few years.
I think the OP is talking about inbound connections on the port, not outbound. Big difference.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240


lazl0

@nc.us
Hold up, when you say inbound do you mean running your own NNTP service? Or do you mean inbound pertaining to Suddenlink's network from the outside?


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
said by lazl0 :

Hold up, when you say inbound do you mean running your own NNTP service? Or do you mean inbound pertaining to Suddenlink's network from the outside?
It seemed to me, like they were talking about running their own server, and thus inbound connections on port 119 being throttled, but who knows, I might be wrong.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240


SuddenlinkTX

join:2007-09-05
Tyler, TX
reply to war6763
Please refrain from announcing something is "confirmed" unless Suddenlink has confirmed it.

Please see this page for the list of ports blocked/filtered by Suddenlink: »www.suddenlink.com/support/infor···SpeedIn/
Those are the ONLY ports that are blocked/filtered on Residential accounts.

Your post sounded like you are trying to run your own server, so please also keep in mind that if you are attempting to run your own server, that is against the Acceptable Use Policy and Residential Services Agreement, and could get your services suspended.

Good luck.


lazl0

@nc.us
Thanks for the official word. While I have had speed issues from time to time with usenet services, I've never had an issue with any port blocking. And of course, running your own NNTP service is a violation of Suddenlink's AUP...

NewsAdmin

join:2009-02-13
Sorry to hear about the situation with Suddenlink, and this appears to be a growing trend with ISPs when it comes to throttling or blocking NNTP traffic in their network.

In your experience was Suddenlink entirely blocking connections on the 119 / NNTP port, or were they restricting your connection speeds?

Not sure if you gave it a try, but folks have had some success working around these Usenet blocks by switching their newsreader to an alternate NNTP port (8080, 80, etc.) or using a web-newsgroup interface.

Most newsgroup providers offer alternate NNTP ports, and there are a few that also have a web-newsgroup option as well. If interested we run a public site that has comparisons of newsgroup providers & their account features. You may or may not be able to find someone that can get you back on track with your Usenet access. Best of luck!

Bob / NewsAdmin.Com

dwd

join:2008-12-16
Eureka, CA

1 edit
reply to gatorkram
They are not blocking 119 incoming from a dedicated new server. They are blocking you for running your own high volume webserver, or they think it will or could be high volume.

dwd

join:2008-12-16
Eureka, CA
reply to SuddenlinkTX
I just read the reasoning and it seems legitimate for those trying to run high volume web servers on home accounts. Roadrunner does the same thing to stop web servers on home accounts. But I ran a web server--not high volume--by getting around that limitation somehow. Can't remember how I did it. It was a fine workaround for personal webserver stuff between me and a couple of friends that needed to share large files from time to time. Now we just use our own shell accounts and set up FTP accounts. But we weren't trying to abuse the system either.


war6763

@suddenlink.net
reply to war6763
No, I didn't mean running a server, just connecting to a usenet server and downloading binaries.

Also, I have not had a problem reaching my bandwidth cap while using encryption...

I didn't mean to cause such a commotion, just saying that it seems like Suddenlink is doing some sort of traffic shaping.


Daarken
Rara Avises
Premium
join:2005-01-12
Southwest LA
kudos:3

With a topic labeled "Confirmed: Suddenlink is blocking Usenet ports!!" yes your going to stir up a commotion.
Also when you word your post such as "I upgraded my Usenet server to include SSL encryption and now I'm running at maximum speed for my tier (10Mb/sec). Funny how they refuse to accept that they're blocking ports..." It definately sounds like your running an illegal home server, which is against almost every ISP's residential TOS in the US.