how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
Re: ISPs, caps, and counters oh my Not sure you will have much of an argument regarding 'illegitimate' traffic.
Not to support Cogeco, but I'm not sure this is the ISP's responsibility.
If you have a fax machine, and get spam, you still have to pay for the paper/ink. If you get spam text messages on a cell phone, you still get charged.
You would have to track down and sue whoever originated that 'illegitimate' traffic.
I certainly DO NOT want the ISPs to start trying to block what they deem to be 'illegitimate' for my own 'protection'. | |
| Wireless phone companies have been sued by customers (and lost) because they allowed unsolicited inbound SMS and charged their customers for it. Now they all have to provide user-configurable inbound SMS filters so users can filter or completely block SMS.
ISPs that have caps and overage charges should provide a user-configurable SPI firewall on the ISP side to prevent/filter unsolicited traffic (where you can select certain services allowed inbound like remote desktop or tunneling protocols). Right now you can only filter that on your end, but the traffic still comes over your cable/DSL modem before getting blocked by your own firewall (so it still counts against your cap). | |
| reply to diskdocx
said by diskdocx:Not sure you will have much of an argument regarding 'illegitimate' traffic. Not to support Cogeco, but I'm not sure this is the ISP's responsibility. If you have a fax machine, and get spam, you still have to pay for the paper/ink. If you get spam text messages on a cell phone, you still get charged. You would have to track down and sue whoever originated that 'illegitimate' traffic. I certainly DO NOT want the ISPs to start trying to block what they deem to be 'illegitimate' for my own 'protection'. I didn't propose it as an argument, but as a rhetoric.
And actually although its not written in fine print, carriers will usually credit you on your bill if you get spam text BUT they claim they can't "block" the text. Tsk tsk. Develop a network and can't control it? Sounds kind of fishy don't you think?
And I agree, no ISP should be tasked with what it believes to be "illegitimate". But, what is stopping me from me and a bunch of friends running ping on his IP address? Even though his computer may be off, he will still get packets. The only way he can make sure he wont get charged is to yank power from the cable modem. I do not believe a customer should have to do that to make sure they don't get a hefty charge. Truth of the matter is that SSH brute force attaches are a common occurrence, should he be held responsible for that?
Does UDP packets count against your cap? What about IPX? Someone should call them out and ask if they count IPX traffic against the cap.
What if someone is trying to employ the same tatic that Skype uses to bypass firewalls to try to get into your network?
All I can say is that if a local ISP employed this same "low cap" I would present these same questions to my congress people and see what they think. I am sure they would not be happy. | |
|
