decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | reply to Trev
Re: Shell shocked by TSI West price increases and no 300GB plan said by Trev:The only reason to go with TSI is if you need to avoid Telus' port filtering or a static IP.
Definitely an issue for users planning on running a server (not to mention the TOS). Btw does anyone know what ports Telus is currently blocking? Other than that the 500GB DSL25 from Telus is very competitive.
Frankly for any of TSI plans at the moment the activation fees and for DSL the the dry-loop and dry-loop install fees are the real killer (I know they are charged to TSI by the incumbents...) as none of those fees are charged to the customer when to use Shaw or Telus. The activation fees is about 1.5-2x the monthly fee and the dry loop can be as much as $20 depending on where you live (not to mention the additional dry loop install fee).
In Ontario those fees are easier to swallow as both Rogers and Bell's regular monthly fees are significantly higher with lower usage caps than TSI. But in the West, Telus and Shaw (especially Telus atm) are especially different. With some plans the prices between the incumbent and TSI is only a few dollars apart. When you start tacking on additional fees it becomes rather hard for those trying to stay with TSI. |
|
 TrevIP Telephony AddictPremium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:4 | said by decx:Definitely an issue for users planning on running a server (not to mention the TOS). Btw does anyone know what ports Telus is currently blocking? Other than that the 500GB DSL25 from Telus is very competitive.
They block at least 25, 80, and 443. Not sure what else as I haven't extensively tested this yet.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca |
|
decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | said by Trev:said by decx:Definitely an issue for users planning on running a server (not to mention the TOS). Btw does anyone know what ports Telus is currently blocking? Other than that the 500GB DSL25 from Telus is very competitive.
They block at least 25, 80, and 443. Not sure what else as I haven't extensively tested this yet. Thanks. Those ports would definitely be the drawback to Telus. Port 26 is fairly easy to get around, but 80 is definitely an issue. |
|
TrevIP Telephony AddictPremium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:4 | said by decx:Thanks. Those ports would definitely be the drawback to Telus. Port 26 is fairly easy to get around, but 80 is definitely an issue.
Yeah, it's annoying for us geeks that want to run servers at our home. But when we set up our friends, family, etc they really don't care. It's impossible to justify to them why they should pay more for something that doesn't matter to them. They'll never need to run a service on those ports.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca |
|
|
|
 bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2
 ·FreedomPop
1 edit | reply to decx
said by decx :They block at least 25, 80, and 443. Not sure what else as I haven't extensively tested this yet. Couldn't you use 8080 instead of 80?
said by Trev :That didn't fly when I signed up a few weeks ago. The installer only had the wifi crap that they use for TV installs. It's easy, send them away. I don't eff around anymore as I get older. I tell the Tellus CSRs what I want and require and ask them to document it in the order. I had to send an Optik TV guy away and magically Telus' Quebec office called and rectified everything. It's uncomfortable to send someone down the road, but you'll never get what you want otherwise. The TELUS guys (employees) in their respective forum have stated that the standalone VDSL modem is available, but most folks don't carry it in their vans. |
|
decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | reply to Trev
said by Trev:Yeah, it's annoying for us geeks that want to run servers at our home. But when we set up our friends, family, etc they really don't care. It's impossible to justify to them why they should pay more for something that doesn't matter to them. They'll never need to run a service on those ports.
Kind of off topic, but it's not just geeks. I've gotten many questions from less technically inclined friends about not being able to send email because their non-ISP SMTP servers don't work because of the port 25 block. |
|
decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | reply to bbbc
said by bbbc:said by decx :They block at least 25, 80, and 443. Not sure what else as I haven't extensively tested this yet. Couldn't you use 8080 instead of 80? You could. But it's not fun trying to get all your users to append a port number after your domain name to get to the correct port. |
|
bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2 Reviews:
·FreedomPop
| said by decx :You could. But it's not fun trying to get all your users to append a port number after your domain name to get to the correct port. Looks like a dynamic DNS service is the way to go if you don't want to get raped by the new TSI West rates. |
|
decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | said by bbbc:said by decx :You could. But it's not fun trying to get all your users to append a port number after your domain name to get to the correct port. Looks like a dynamic DNS service is the way to go if you don't want to get raped by the new TSI West rates. How about a web host?  |
|
TrevIP Telephony AddictPremium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:4 | reply to decx
said by decx:Kind of off topic, but it's not just geeks. I've gotten many questions from less technically inclined friends about not being able to send email because their non-ISP SMTP servers don't work because of the port 25 block.
You make a semi-valid point, yes, but it's bad habit to use port 25 anyway because of the filtering. End users are best served by using the submission port, 587, to send their email. This way it still works on networks that do filtering, such as practically all free wifi access services.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca |
|
decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | said by Trev:said by decx:Kind of off topic, but it's not just geeks. I've gotten many questions from less technically inclined friends about not being able to send email because their non-ISP SMTP servers don't work because of the port 25 block.
You make a semi-valid point, yes, but it's bad habit to use port 25 anyway because of the filtering. End users are best served by using the submission port, 587, to send their email. This way it still works on networks that do filtering, such as practically all free wifi access services. Ideally that is the case. Unfortunately port 25 has been as a standard for far too long to make people convert easily. In addition, port 587 isn't uniformly applied on many email servers which further adds to the confusion. |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:2 | said by decx:said by Trev:said by decx:Kind of off topic, but it's not just geeks. I've gotten many questions from less technically inclined friends about not being able to send email because their non-ISP SMTP servers don't work because of the port 25 block.
You make a semi-valid point, yes, but it's bad habit to use port 25 anyway because of the filtering. End users are best served by using the submission port, 587, to send their email. This way it still works on networks that do filtering, such as practically all free wifi access services. Ideally that is the case. Unfortunately port 25 has been as a standard for far too long to make people convert easily. In addition, port 587 isn't uniformly applied on many email servers which further adds to the confusion. Unfortunately port 25 is also the most common way for zombies (compromised/infected computers) to send out spam email messages without the user knowing, which is why most ISPs have blocked it, else their IPs would quickly become blacklisted.
Assuming this hasn't changed, Teksavvy blocks 25, except if you have a static IP. |
|
