karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Maxo
Re: Let's not confuse.
"Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues?"
Yes, yes and yes. The ISP has no right to do any of those things. The end user is responsible for spam. The end user is responsible for WEP. The end user is responsible for traffic shaping.
Once the ISP starts blocking ANYTHING, they cease to be an ISP, and become a 'web browsing service'. I most certainly do NOT want to pay for a 'web browsing service', I pay for an IP address. And I expect ALL traffic, regardless of source, destination or protocol to be serviced by my ISP. Because remember, ISP stands for INTERNET service provider.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | said by karlmarx  :I'm posting to give my opinion on this subject. *GROAN* |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to karlmarx
They do have every right. It's called a TOS or Terms of Service that you agree upon. Don't like a TOS use a different provider of course most have this practise. Still don't like it? You can always use dialup.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
 ·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to karlmarx
quote:
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
You'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously based on that.
You missed the 'service' in Internet Service Provider. You evidently missed where you agreed to terms and conditions as well.
You rent the use of their network to connect to the internet, they can supply this connection with any restriction they see fit. |
|
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :"Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues?" Yes, yes and yes. The ISP has no right to do any of those things. The end user is responsible for spam. The end user is responsible for WEP. The end user is responsible for traffic shaping. Once the ISP starts blocking ANYTHING, they cease to be an ISP, and become a 'web browsing service'. I most certainly do NOT want to pay for a 'web browsing service', I pay for an IP address. And I expect ALL traffic, regardless of source, destination or protocol to be serviced by my ISP. Because remember, ISP stands for INTERNET service provider. And what do you think happens when every user within your ISP's network is blacklisted because of botnets, worms, spam, viruses, etc...? You can't send mail to any domain. And then you'll complain to your ISP that you can't send mail to your friends and family.
It's an evil cycle and the easiest solution is to let the ISP do some of the filtering for the user. Too many people don't update their PC's and don't have an AV solution, so what choice does the ISP have?
They have a responsibility to provide me, as a customer, a reliable service. If they can't do that, they'll lose me as a customer. So in order to do that, they filter port 25 and any viruses/spam that hit their network. I'm okay with that because 5 years ago my ISP didn't have those policies and I couldn't send mail to many people because my ISP was blacklisted on every RBL.
--
Sens vs Leafs (3-1) - Round 5 of 8: Dec 30 |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to jsouth
said by jsouth :They do have every right. It's called a TOS or Terms of Service that you agree upon. Don't like a TOS use a different provider of course most have this practise. Still don't like it? You can always use dialup. Or, you can be your own ISP. You'll just have to buy yourself a business-class connection. How much are T1s going for these days, any way (especially if you're on a LONG loop length)?
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to karlmarx
This is one of many reasons why T1s and T3s cost much more than DSL and Cable. The rules are completely different for our business class customers than they are for a residential type service. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :"Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues?" Yes, yes and yes. The ISP has no right to do any of those things. The end user is responsible for spam. The end user is responsible for WEP. The end user is responsible for traffic shaping. OMG,  of all the ludicrous statements I think I have ever read on this site I think I am going to note yours. You are assuming joe user has enough responsibility to know what those three things mean. Much less their p2p/bit-torrent trading kids that know enough to have a DCMA/RIAA letter sent to their parent's mailbox.
said by karlmarx :Once the ISP starts blocking ANYTHING, they cease to be an ISP, and become a 'web browsing service'. I most certainly do NOT want to pay for a 'web browsing service', I pay for an IP address. And I expect ALL traffic, regardless of source, destination or protocol to be serviced by my ISP. Because remember, ISP stands for INTERNET service provider. So an ISP does not have a right to protect themselves, or their e-mail services from being blacklisted, or keep viruses from plaguing the internet. Man I think you need to sue Spamhaus as well. Technically they are advocating anti-net neutrality then (in your eyes)
Yea, I should have all my ports open just so I can receive the latest port 135, 137, 1025, (and a variety of others)attacks. No thanks, I will block them at my firewall. If the ISP I choose decides to block these in curbing of a bigger problem then so be it. I guess that makes me anti-net-neutrality as well since I kill the infections (block ports) at the router level. Gee, who's going to sue me? Anyone stealing my internet connection really don't have a right to sue me for anti-net-neutrality if they are stealing it right? God I hope not.
Please tell me you keep your computer up to date, and not with an expired copy of Norton anti virus 2003
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
|
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | reply to karlmarx
FYI: You're wrong. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to David
"No thanks, I will block them at my firewall. If the ISP I choose decides to block these in curbing of a bigger problem then so be it. I guess that makes me anti-net-neutrality as well since I kill the infections (block ports) at the router level."
You just stated my case. YOU are blocking the ports. YOU are running the firewall. YOU decide what is and isn't good traffic. The fact that JOE idiot isn't smart enough is the root cause of the problem. But the solution shouldn't be the ISP blocking ports. The solution is for microsoft to make it's software BETTER. The solution is for Joe idiot to run a firewall. The solution, is in front of the keyboard, not at the ISP.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| reply to karlmarx
karlmarx,
You are correct, though you will get a lot of posts citing TOS as the deciding factor.
You purchase an Internet connection. The provider of that connection has no right to arbitrarily filter that connection.
Those who thing port 25 blocking, spam filtering, etc. is OK, try port 80 blocking. If your provider writes it into the TOS, it should be OK, right?
If people had the opportunity to choose a full service ISP or a partial service ISP, then the argument that anything in the TOS is OK would be more reasonable. But the purchaser of service generally has no options. Note also that ISP's who block port 25 will often unblock it if you are willing to pay double for the connection. Why should anyone have to pay extra to keep the ISP from blocking something? Or stated another way, blocking the port is just another way to overcharge for service. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :The fact that JOE idiot isn't smart enough is the root cause of the problem. Very telling. Someone who doesn't have the computer knowledge you do is an idiot. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to jpark
said by jpark :Those who thing port 25 blocking, spam filtering, etc. is OK, try port 80 blocking. If your provider writes it into the TOS, it should be OK, right? It's irrelevant to my original post. I'm saying lets call piss piss, and let's call shit shit. But please don't call shit piss and piss shit just because they are both forms of bodily waste management.
Net neutrality has to do with backbone providers allowing (forcing) the richer companies to pay extra money to have priority over everyone else on the network.
This will mean if you go to news.yahoo.com you get snappy service, but if you go to jimmiesindependentnews.com things don't load quite so fast. In fact, it's almost not worth getting your news from Jimmie anymore because you are frustrated trying to get those video clips the major networks won't show because it just takes too damn long.
ISPs on the other hand are trying to protect their network from being overloaded with SPAM and viruses, and trying to keep themselves off of spam blacklists. I'm not saying it is or isn't their right to do such things. I am saying it has nothing to do with network neutrality.
If people keep redefining network neutrality it will never make it passed the Senate. Opponents will say that it impedes fights against spam and viruses. They will say all sorts of things that aren't true, but people will believe them because those opposing network neutrality will be making arguments like what karlmarx are saying, which just isn't true and is harmful to the movement.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to jsouth
Most of us don't have a choice. That's why we need regulation. Market forces aren't at work.
Once customers have choices (not just one but MANY), then there is no need for regulation since customer choices will inevitably define what ISP and HSI mean. And regardless of what most choose, a choice will be there to serve the niche who want something different.
That said, I doubt true competition will ever exist and we need to get on with the regulation. Carriers don't want this because they want to increase their revenue. From a certain perspective, they have an obligation to their shareholders to increase revenue any way they can. That doesn't mean it's just.
What if the electric company increased profits by charging more to businesses who uses energy to make money? They don't want to be a "dumb electric" provider but rather they want to get a piece of the money pie that comes from consuming energy. In return they would guarantee "priority" power to businesses. Naturally these surcharges are above and beyond what each business already pays for their energy use.
In my opinion this is hogwash. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| Electric companies already charge higher rates to businesses than they do to residential accounts. In fact, as a commercial user you can pay extra for "priority power" and even connect yourself to two different grids for redundancy--for a price. In critical situations the power company will even provide on-site emergency generation if you pay for the premium service. On the other hand, if you are a large user you can negotiate discounted rates your typical homeowner can only dream of.
You need to come up with a better analogy. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :You just stated my case. YOU are blocking the ports. YOU are running the firewall. YOU decide what is and isn't good traffic. You are right, I block the ports, at my router at home. Thank you for proving my point as well. Joe common user is rather stupid. Trust me as long as people who connect to my network here at home,wired or wireless, why do they give 2 shits what ports I block on my incoming connection? Got a clue for you.. they dont! My home network, my rules, you don't like it build or buy your own!
said by karlmarx :The fact that JOE idiot isn't smart enough is the root cause of the problem. But the solution shouldn't be the ISP blocking ports.
As far as ISP's doing it, thier ToS, thier rules, you don't like it? find a different provider. Most are starting to block it now a days if they haven't done it already. Does it have anything to do with net-neutrality... No! it's simple Terms of Service. I remember when it was on the front page news where SBC was going to start blocking port 25. 1/2 to 3/4 of the network administrators said "about friggin time!"
said by karlmarx :The solution is for microsoft to make it's software BETTER. The solution is for Joe idiot to run a firewall. Considering 90% of the market belongs to microsoft and 90% of the viruses are written for thier products I would say sue the virus writers. Yea, like that is going to happen, it takes the goverment as least 3 weeks to 12 months to catch one if they catch them at all. I think the last one here I read got caught this year. He did is act in 2004, almost 3 yrs later. Yea I have confidence in our goverment that can't seem to track illegals in this country either. It would be fantastic if Joe User would use a firewall. Problem is most don't, or they may use the one that comes with Mcafee or Norton. There's no guarantee they will use it or even use it correctly. I still think there should be a drivers license for computers, and you should have to take a test, but that's just me.
said by karlmarx :The solution, is in front of the keyboard, not at the ISP. The solution in front of the keyboard... yea, I will believe that when hell freezes over. If Joe User was responsible viruses wouldn't proliferate, SPAM would be stuff we eat, and parents would give a shit what thier kids did on the net. You are living a dream if you think any of that happens. You have a lot to learn about the net my friend. I will leave it at that.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
|
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :The end user is responsible for WEP. The end user is responsible for traffic shaping. I'm not sure I understand the position you are offering. How is it my responsibility for unsolicited email? If it is going to be my responsibility then let the ISPs stop offering email exchange all together and let ME run my own SMTP and POP3 servers. Then, and only then, should it be my responsibility.
Handcuffing me in the back seat of a car and saying, "its your responsibility to drive the car" is absurd. 
Considering that today's ISP networks are more than capable of sniffing layer-3 traffic, they could off-load this responsibility to the end user and then police common port-traffic and extra-end user complaints regarding Spam. In fact, I'm betting more than a handful of companies would love to offer dumb-based email exchange software for the end user. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
4 edits | reply to 04875776
So is the priority power better than less expensive power? (i.e. Will one simply not work to run my manufacturing plant and the other will?)
I thought the price usually went down the more you used. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| You pay for reliability (as in priority service). If you are identified as a critical load (i.e. you pay extra for reliability) they'll cut off others to make sure you're not browned-out. If power goes out you're one of the first restored. It's all about premium service.
I'll compare my office electric bill to your home bill any day. The price goes down the more you use up to a point if you have a contract that states that. In exchange, you agree to use x KWH/mo and do not exceed y KWH in any z period (demand metering). If you go over the negotiated demand limit your rate goes through the roof for the entire billing period.
In this case the "packets" are the same, but their priority is based on how much you pay. The amount you pay is based on how much you use. If you go over the contract rate you are penalized. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| But in the end, how many times would a "non priority" customer accept a brown out or black out before the government demands change? I believe priority electrical contracts are for exceptional situations. In my opinion, ISPs want their customers to pay more for the "normal" situation. In other words, unless Google video pays more, their video service will always suck.
A few years ago California had a big problem with rolling blackouts to keep the grid on-line. I believe they have solved that problem by adding more capacity, not by signing more priority contracts from businesses.
Net-neutrality folks are asking the ISPs to add more bandwidth and, if necessary, increase base rates. But to charge based on type of traffic is ridiculous. It's not hard to recognize it's simply a money grab. Besides, QOS won't work if it means everything else goes to hell as in the case of an electrical brown/blackout. |
|
