 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Ways Around Our mail server software allows multiple SMTP ports, so we just opened another port for our clients.
Problem solved.
Most 3rd party mail hosting services should allow this.
--
Use the OS tool for the job - loser fanboy. | |
|  | 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ways Around said by Matt  :Our mail server software allows multiple SMTP ports, so we just opened another port for our clients. Problem solved. Most 3rd party mail hosting services should allow this. Mine does. By default many hosters open up port 26 in addition to 25 for sending mail. I have my laptop configured as such, as I couldn't send mail a few times when at family or friends houses.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. | |
| 
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA
| precedent The only way these tactics could feed into net neutrality is if they are used as a precedent for other, slimier practices. If a carrier can get mileage out of saying "well we already break functionality on mail ports, so why not service x?" then it could be seen as part of the net neutrality debate.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun | |
| 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| Let's not confuse. Let's not confuse net neutrality with unrelated issues of an ISPs right to block certain material on their network. Are we going to start calling SPAM blocking, WEP, and traffic shaping net neutrality issues? Net neutrality is about giving all data traveling over the internet equal priority. Once it hits an Intranet with packets bound to the customer it's a different ball game. | |
| | 04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
1 edit | Re: Let's not confuse. The real problem is that "Net Neutrality" has already jumped the shark. It's being used as a battle flag against anything some dunderheaded pundit doesn't like.
ISPs blocking ports is to Net Neutrality what permit parking is to driving. There's always a way around the "problem".
Now, if an ISP starts charging to send email, and then blocks anything that looks like an email packet from evading their for-pay SMTP server, then we have a "Network Neutrality" problem. | |
| | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | Re: Let's not confuse. DING DING DING
We have a winner.... | |
| | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| "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: | Re: Let's not confuse. said by karlmarx :I'm posting to give my opinion on this subject. *GROAN* | |
| | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| 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? | |
| | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Let's not confuse. 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 | |
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| 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
| Re: Let's not confuse. 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. | |
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
4 edits | Re: Let's not confuse. 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
| Re: Let's not confuse. 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
| Re: Let's not confuse. 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | 04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| Re: Let's not confuse. They accept them every year. If you agree to interruptible electrical service for a discount rate (which is the equivalent to residential/consumer-class ISP service) then you have no grounds for a complaint.
California's problem was due to being cut off from most of the generating capacity due to sleight-of-hand accounting and inability to pay (see: Enron).
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. It has to do with Chicken Little punditry. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| Re: Let's not confuse. said by 04875776 :Net Neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. It has to do with Chicken Little punditry. Or people who want all websites to have equal access over the internet, not just those who make lots of money. I.E. don't want to mess up a system that is currently in place and working just fine. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL | Re: Let's not confuse. Wake me when there is a documented case of this actually happening. Until then it's all merely chest-thumping and blog-filling speculation, designed to drive page views and Adsense payouts. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| Re: Let's not confuse. I'll just restate what you quoted here by reference and add that, paraphrasing Mammy, "askin' ain't gettin'". They can announce intent all they want but until it is implemented, see above.
I've been here for seven years. Don't let the join date mislead you. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Re: Let's not confuse. The fact is they want to, and there isn't anything really to stop them. | |
| | | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| So are you saying the connectivity that Yahoo and Google buy today is the type of service that's interruptable in exchange for a discount rate? I doubt they have that arrangement. I would guess they have the type of contract that requires five nines and expectation of bandwidth.
What I hear from the ISPs is that they fear their backbones will be oversold and someone is going to have to pay for upgrades. In a normal competitive environment a business places a portion of existing profits into reserves for future upgrades, borrows money and uses current profits to make payments or, if publicly trade, issues stock. If they cannot afford upgrade, they lose the excess business to competitors.
Is that what will happen? If so, there's no need for net neutrality. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL | Re: Let's not confuse. We're talking about ISP customers, not Google. This news item is about port blocking at the customer end, and whether it is a "network neutrality" issue. For whatever reason, you're the one who derailed this train. | |
| | | | | | 
Deadpool
Go Sens Go
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
·Bell Sympatico
| 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 | |
| | | 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | 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
| 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!!
| |
| | | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Let's not confuse. "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. | |
| | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| Re: Let's not confuse. 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. | |
| | | | |
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | 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!!
| |
| | | 
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | FYI: You're wrong. | |
| | | jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| 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:
| Re: Let's not confuse. 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 | |
| | | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| 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. | |
| 
spectroanon
@dyn-intl.com | nothing to see here did anybody explained to that moron he can get around the restriction by configuring smtp-auth and relaying through MSN mail servers?
I have no idea about MSN dialup but I bet they support that. | |
| kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| port 25 blocks are fine as long as folks are aware of them I don't mind a port 25 block, if it's made clear to users that it's in place, and there's an option to get the port unblocked either by getting a business level of service or do like what DSL extreme does, and allow the customer to unblock the port themselves. For users that truly want port 25 outbound to anywhere other than their current ISP, and especially users wanting port 25 inbound to run their own mail server, they should have the option to do so. so not sure though if I'd call that part of net neutrallity though. | |
| 
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| many services have alternate ports available... The block prevents users from sending outgoing mail via any third party mail-hosting services. "any" is too all-encompassing. It may have been true eons ago but these days I think only the crappiest hosts don't have port 26 (etc) open.
Speaking of "these days"... isn't webmail the craze anyways? How many people even have an honest-to-goodness dedicated mail client that depends on SMTP to send mail?
Heh... I suppose forcing open port 25 outbound based on net neutrality issues could be extended. Is it "neutral" when a provider tries to protect themselves during DDOS attack by dropping packets or diverting traffic etc?
--
My Site | |
| | 
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Spring City, PA
| Re: many services have alternate ports available... said by pog :Speaking of "these days"... isn't webmail the craze anyways? How many people even have an honest-to-goodness dedicated mail client that depends on SMTP to send mail? Err... like everyone I know! | |
| | |
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: many services have alternate ports available... said by operagost :said by pog :Speaking of "these days"... isn't webmail the craze anyways? How many people even have an honest-to-goodness dedicated mail client that depends on SMTP to send mail? Err... like everyone I know! The masses I interact with mostly seem to be using their ISP's web interface... you must be running in more technical circles. 
However, I am pretty much Webmail Boy myself these days too... it's my own PHP/IMAP script running on my host's server. But I am known to fall back to gmail when my site screws up. LOL!
--
My Site | |
| | | | 
edward50
Premium
join:2006-06-10
Brookfield, MO | "How many people even have an honest-to-goodness dedicated mail client that depends on SMTP to send mail?"
millions - Out of the ten most active email contacts I have only 3 people use web mail. | |
| tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
·Speakeasy
| This is one more reason to require leasing DSL and fibre (last mile facilities) to 3rd party ISP's..
Give consumers a choice between different ISP's. (Who have terms of service and conditions not set by ILEC.)
Note: I use Speakeasy/Covad DSL over BS wires and have no port or server restrictions.
Redundancy.. Putting all your marbles in one large ISP basket is just begging Mr. Murphy to do his worst. BS customers have recently suffered through several wide scale failures. DNS.. Mail.. Routing.. Radius..etc..
| |
| | Dolgan
Premium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: This is one more reason to require leasing DSL and fibre The CLEC ISPs have had 20 years to start building their own networks--they have chosen to remain cherry-picking parasites, and will reap their just rewards. Verizon does not have to lease its FTTP network, just as Cable Cos do not, due to the expenditure of private capital required for network build outs. Verizon will be dumping its copper network as soon as it is feasible, and already is pursuing a policy of little to no maintainence to its existing copper plant.
The only way it would even be remotely fair, to require the Line Sharing you desire, would be requiring the CLEC ISPs to provide 100% coverage to any footprint they chose to enter. They should have to cover all the small towns and rural areas just like any ILEC...the current state of allowing the CLECs to pick and choose where they offer service is not even remotely competitive. | |
| | | 
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| Re: This is one more reason to require leasing DSL and fibre said by Dolgan :The CLEC ISPs have had 20 years to start building their own networks--they have chosen to remain cherry-picking parasites, and will reap their just rewards. Verizon does not have to lease its FTTP network, just as Cable Cos do not, due to the expenditure of private capital required for network build outs. Verizon will be dumping its copper network as soon as it is feasible, and already is pursuing a policy of little to no maintainence to its existing copper plant. The only way it would even be remotely fair, to require the Line Sharing you desire, would be requiring the CLEC ISPs to provide 100% coverage to any footprint they chose to enter. They should have to cover all the small towns and rural areas just like any ILEC...the current state of allowing the CLECs to pick and choose where they offer service is not even remotely competitive. [INSERT REGULAR RANT ABOUT ILEC AND CLECs HERE]
But remember, ILECS didn't pay for the current infrastructure. They were given it (for the most part) by Bell. Bell was a regulated monopoly, and was paid by the consumers over and over again for their infrastructure.
What you are imposing is such a barrier to entry that no CLEC can pay. Plus, would we want a pair of wires going from each CO to each residence? Think of the mess that would be in the right of way! | |
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: This is one more reason to require leasing DSL and fibre said by quetwo :But remember, ILECS didn't pay for the current infrastructure. They were given it (for the most part) by Bell. Bell was a regulated monopoly, and was paid by the consumers over and over again for their infrastructure. The ILECs were created out of the judicially carved up carcass of AT&T in 1984.
The ILECs have had to add copper to expand their coverage since the 1984 breakup of AT&T.
The ILECs have to repair, or replace the copper infrastructure over time because those copper wires on the poles don't last forever.
FTTP (including FIOS), FTTC, FTTN, the latest ILEC initiative, wasn't around in 1984 when AT&T was carved up, so AT&T didn't pay the ILECs a red cent for the neighborhood rollout of fiber.
They weren't "given" anything that they haven't had to expend capital on since getting the infrastructure.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | |
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| Re: This is one more reason to require leasing DSL and fibre You are correct, however, there are rental fees for the lines. It's not line the CLECs are getting to use those lines for free... The fees range from $12/mo - $25/mo for a dry-loop from the CO to the DMARC of the customer.
That fee takes care of line maintenance (on top of the CLEC has to pay for certain line maintenance), and added plant. | |
| squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
| As other's have mentioned... Many 3rd party mail providers accept other ports (eg .Mac is 587).
What's funny is the total lies the cable industry is throwing out there as net neutrality becomes a public issue. Just the other day Cox had an ad proclaiming net neutrality as a scheme to gouge consumers to make silicon valley fat cats rich. Oh brother. The cable and telco whores have absolutely no shame. Hopefully Google and other content providers, without which there would be no cable or telco HSI (no content = no subscribers), will put together ads of their own telling the truth about cable and telco attempts to double dip and blackmail competitors to the detriment of their customers. | |
| |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: As other's have mentioned... said by squid7 :Many 3rd party mail providers accept other ports (eg .Mac is 587). What's funny is the total lies the cable industry is throwing out there as net neutrality becomes a public issue. Just the other day Cox had an ad proclaiming net neutrality as a scheme to gouge consumers to make silicon valley fat cats rich. Oh brother. The cable and telco whores have absolutely no shame. Hopefully Google and other content providers, without which there would be no cable or telco HSI (no content = no subscribers), will put together ads of their own telling the truth about cable and telco attempts to double dip and blackmail competitors to the detriment of their customers. Heh, those show those here in the East Coast on the Time Warner network too. They are soo over dramatic I have to laugh.
Even the guys voice.
--
Use the OS tool for the job - loser fanboy. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: As other's have mentioned... said by Matt :said by squid7 :Many 3rd party mail providers accept other ports (eg .Mac is 587). What's funny is the total lies the cable industry is throwing out there as net neutrality becomes a public issue. Just the other day Cox had an ad proclaiming net neutrality as a scheme to gouge consumers to make silicon valley fat cats rich. Oh brother. The cable and telco whores have absolutely no shame. Hopefully Google and other content providers, without which there would be no cable or telco HSI (no content = no subscribers), will put together ads of their own telling the truth about cable and telco attempts to double dip and blackmail competitors to the detriment of their customers. Heh, those show those here in the East Coast on the Time Warner network too. They are soo over dramatic I have to laugh. Even the guys voice. Word. | |
| | |
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: The way I see it... As long as they are blocking port 25 to anywhere it's not a neutrality issue. When they start blocking port 25 based on it's destination then it is. | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Blocking port 25 is not degrading the service. Port 25 is for "mail transfer", between mail service providers. You are likely not a mail service provider, but an end user. End users need a message submission port, and, oddly enough, RFC 2476 defines such a port. As long as you can send your email, what difference should it make to you whether it goes out to port 25, or port 587?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Yep. Sure, it's a net neutrality issue. The ISP requires you to use its mail server rather than any you care to. The issue is the same with mail as it is with VoIP or any other service the ISP might care to block. | |
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Yep. said by russotto :Sure, it's a net neutrality issue. The ISP requires you to use its mail server rather than any you care to. The issue is the same with mail as it is with VoIP or any other service the ISP might care to block. I see it as not only a form of net non-neutrality but also hypocrisy in many cases. I have no problems with an ISP blocking out-going SMTP Connections to other ISP's SMTP Servers (and saying that those other ISPs should have their SMTP Servers listen on Port25 as well as some other Port [such as the OFFICIALLY designated via RFC Mail-Submission-Agent/MSA Port587]) SO LONG AS the ISP follows their own requirement to have a non-Port25 port for their customers to use when not using the ISP's Connectivity (ie: Are currently connected via some other ISP). If you Block or Hijack (ie: Force Connect all Port25 Session Connects to your Server even when the user asks to connect to some other server) Port25 sessions you MUST provide some other port to use (protected via SMTP AUTH or some other authentication/authorization method such as POP-before-SMTP). Having SMTP-over-SSL (Port465) would be nice also although all I ask is the Non-Port25 support to show that you are following you own rules. | |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Weak Argument For starters, the blocking of port 25 does not prevent the use of outside mail services. All it prevents is either the running of an MTA on ISP subscriber systems or the direct delivery of mail to remote MTAs.
SMTP clients should be using SMTP submission ports at any rate. They should use the RFC-described ports of either 587 for STARTTLS-capable clients or 465 for SSL-capable clients. When set up, these ports have an almost 100% authentication requirement for use. Contrast this to the general transmission SMTP port 25 which never (without breaking RFCs) requires authentication on delivery attempts. Allowing any and every ISP subscriber to directly send out to port 25 allows that ISP's subscribers to spam remote MTAs, directly, particularly if they are part of a bot-net.
So, no, this isn't a net neutrality issue. The only way it would ever become a net neutrality issue is if ISPs started charging for their own SMTP services AND blocked all SMTP-related ports.
-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 | |
| | nonymous
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
| Re: Weak Argument So then block ports 587 and 465.
Yes an ISP can block any ports it wants. Sometimes there just are not enough ISPs to choose from.
Sure I want to pay business prices for a small website for family and run a small friends and family email server.
I get more incoming spam on my ISP issued email than mine. | |
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Weak Argument said by nonymous :So then block ports 587 and 465. You missed the freaking point. Blocking port 25 (outbound) does not prevent SMTP clients from being able to use arbitrary external SMTP relays. All it does is prevent unauthenticated, direct delivery to external MTAs.
As to blocking port 25 inbound: if your ToS already forbids servers (and, most of the ones that block 25 inbound do), it should have no effect on you. The only way it would have an effect is if you were violating your ToS, any way.
said by nonymous :Yes an ISP can block any ports it wants. Generally, there has to be a business or security case for it (and, ultimately/realistically, even the "security" case comes back to a business case).
said by nonymous :Sometimes there just are not enough ISPs to choose from. That's another topic, altogether.
said by nonymous :Sure I want to pay business prices for a small website for family and run a small friends and family email server. So pay for a web hosting account somewhere. For low-traffic servers, the prices are pretty low.
said by nonymous :I get more incoming spam on my ISP issued email than mine. Tell me about it. I set up a special folder just for the emails sent to my ISP account that autoforward to my home account. It's an account that I never use to send mail from have otherwise externally publicized (e.g., via a web page's "mailto:" link). Yet, I get a few hundred emails a week forwarded via that account.
-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 | |
| | | | nonymous
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
| Re: Weak Argument said by nonymous :
Sometimes there just are not enough ISPs to choose from.
That's another topic, altogether.
said by nonymous :
Sure I want to pay business prices for a small website for family and run a small friends and family email server.
So pay for a web hosting account somewhere. For low-traffic servers, the prices are pretty low.
No. Like the control. | |
| | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Weak Argument said by nonymous :said by nixen :So pay for a web hosting account somewhere. For low-traffic servers, the prices are pretty low. No. Like the control. That much is apparent from the fact that you don't seem to want to use the "auto quote" feature, either.
At any rate, pay for the type of service that has the ToS that allows you to run servers, or get yourself one of either a co-lo server, a dedicated server or a shared server.
-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 | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by nonymous :So then block ports 587 and 465. Not necessary. Blocking outbound port 25 is intended to foil spamming zombies. They have to have access to port 25 on the domain gateway servers where they are trying to deliver their spam. They can't send spam blindly through a properly configured message submission server using port 465, or port 587; they would need an authenticated account for access. Costs them money they really can't afford to spend.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
comcast_customer
@raf.com
|  Dont let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch
I personally have a Linux server and my own domain is hosted on that server on my ISP (Comcast) which does not block SMTP ports (in or outgoing). I have an aversion toward GMail's email scanning for advertising purposes, so I'd rather unreliably host my email on a cable connection than have someone else use it for whatever purpose (and I realize one could still snoop on the unencrypted email, but that's a different category of snooping, unlike GMail's).
And now why in the world would my ISP want to block SMTP for the couple of hundred emails I receive in a month is beyond me. I fully expect Comcast to cut me off if I abuse their service in any unacceptable way too. However, hosting personal email on my low-bandwidth broadband connection is, at least in my book as a customer, quite acceptable. | |
| | 
dwhayden
join:2000-12-23
Greenwood, IN
| Re: Dont let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch said by comcast_customer :
And now why in the world would my ISP want to block SMTP for the couple of hundred emails I receive in a month is beyond me. Very good reason, to slow down SPAM for everybody else. Much of my spam comes from Comcast's IP addresses, but none comes from AT&T.
My ISP block outbound 25, and I like it. I run a mail server on my connection, and the outbound 25 block doesn't impact me one bit. Actually I wouldn't want to use it anyway, because most ISPs blacklist my dynamic address range. | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| It isn't just one bad apple, but thousands of them. You run a mail server with an end-to-end relay client? How to you reach AOL friends? Like you, I am running a mail server on my residential connection. But for 'smtp.mail.yahoo.co.jp', I would never have asked SBC to unblock me. Because they did, I can demonstrate the problem:
11/21/06 02:17:15 SMTP Verify %User_ID%@aol.com, at mailin-02.mx.aol.com
Contacting 64.12.138.185
554- (RTR:BB) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrbb.html
HELO aosake.net
554 Connecting IP: 69.233.32.183
Doesn't want to talk to us
Have you checked your IP address? Check it against:
list.dsbl.org
dynablock.njabl.org
zen.spamhaus.org
If you are listed, you won't be able to send to an 'aosake.net' email address.
I get around the far end blocks by using either 'smtp.pacbell.yahoo.com', or 'smtpauth.sbcglobal.net'. I did not start running my server because I was unhappy with my ISP's reliability; rather, I wanted far more Draconian spam control than they offered. The portability of the domain is a nice plus.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| 
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Embarq
 ·linode
| Brain Washed It is so funny, how so many of these replies are from brain washed idiots, who think legal, ethical, or fair, all mean the same things. Sure, an ISP can put anything they with in their AUP/TOS, and if you want to use their service, you must agree. This does not make it fair, or ethical. It's even worse when you have no other choices.
Like it or not highspeed internet connections are almost as important and water and power. How many people read the TOS/AUP of their water or power providers? How many people would be upset, if the AUP/TOS of these providers had such restrictive clauses?
Just because they can get away with filtering our connections, doesn't make it right, or fair, or ethical.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Brain Washed In what way is blocking port 25 outbound "unfair"? Let us say, as an example, you have a GMail account. You want to use 'smtp.gmail.com' to send your outbound email. Your ISP blocks outbound port 25. So you are out of luck? Unfairly prohibited from using your preferred server? Bunk! Set your mail client to access port 587, with STARTTLS enabled, and you will have no trouble at all. What? You are using MS Outlook Express and that port 587 connection is failing because MSOE isn't using STARTTLS on port 587? Try port 465 with SSL enabled, instead.
Oops. You are not unfairly blocked from accessing your favored server. Ah, but your favored server doesn't use port 465, port 587, or some other port? Point them in the direction of RFC 2476, and ask them why they are "unfairly" refusing to accept your connection on an RFC designated service port!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Net Neutrality? Spammer's idea of neutrality! My goodness, net neutrality has taken on a whole different perspective.
I certainly don't like the concept of making the big sites like google and msn and yahoo! pay for transport to an ISP's customers, since that's double dipping and is not net neutrality in that it imposes fees on services that are essentially portal services that ISPs themselves tried and failed at miserably (few people want an ISP portal service ... look at what happened to AOL and Compuserve etc
Net neutrality is all about one company restricting the access to other companies on the basis of anti competetive practices.
Net neutrality is NOT the same thing as an ISP protecting itself by blocking port 25 ... they aren't stopping you accessing 3rd party mail servers (unless like Canaca, they don't have the brains to implement mail submission servers instead of mail transport servers.) The mail issue is dealt with in the RFPs that ISPs and Mail service providers/ hosting providers failed to implement. Well, now's the time to implement it ... that old time religion isn't good enough any more!
The idea that this falls into the net neutrality bucket is nothing but wishful thinking to hope that they can use that to leverage ISPs to open the offending ports. Of course, spammers would be one of the first to open this can of worms since it very much restricts their activity, including their thousands of spambots. | |
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Port 587! When OOL started blocking port 25, I added port 587 to my personal server and company server. Problem solved. At least for now 587 is a good standard workaround to port 25 blocks.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Port 587! Port 587 is specified in RFC 2476. It is unlikely to be blocked because spamming zombies can't spam through port 587 to a remote domain. If the message submission server is properly configured, the spammer won't even be able to spam to the local domain of the server.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| This is wrong I have no problem with an ISP blocking a port to prevent a network storm but a permanent block is ridiculous. The issue is it's easier to block port 25 than to educate your customers and hold them accountable for their actions. It's hard to imagine "freedom" if such measures were allowed in other aspects of society. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
Mobymud
join:2006-11-22
North Bergen, NJ
| The Net Neutrality issue was NOT Port 25 blocking! ... It was the fact that MSN, Cox and others only allow you to send email using THEIR email addresses (Gene@MSN.com Gene@Hotmail.com, etc.) The story reads that Port 25 blocking is a necessary evil for consumers to prevent them from sending out viruses at least. But to prevent me from getting to smtp.RealNews123.com, for example, benefits no one besides MSN: They tag the MSN email I send out with an advert. That is the Net Neut issue: if I want to send email, do not filter legitimate email just because my email address doesn't have @MSN or @Hotmail at the end! | |
| | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Re: The Net Neutrality issue was NOT Port 25 blocking! No, no, I benefits me too. Now I don't have to put up with all those V14gra messages your bot controlled computer was sending me. | |
| | | |
|
|
Port 25/TCP Blocks a Net Neutrality Issue?
