how-to block ads
|
|  
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. | |
| | | |
|
