AOL now rejecting mail from Comcast residential IPs.

[Kenneth E. Lussier]

On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 09:19, Derek Martin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:05:56AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > > No, I don't disagree with any of the facts you stated, but SO WHAT?
> > > That argument is of the same mentality as, "Well, you live in the
> > > neiborhood where all the drug dealers live, so if you are wrongly
> > > imprisoned for dealing drugs, that's just too bad."
> > 
> > This is completely flawed logic, since the comparison doesn't work. You
> > are in no way trapped, since you have a usable, working alternative. A
> 
> The same is true for the guy living with the drug dealers.  Don't want
> to be arrested with the rest of the drug dealers?  Move!

This is partially correct. If you don't want to be arested with the
other drug deals, don't deal drugs. If you don't want to live with them,
then you can move. 
 
> Frankly, I think the analogy is perfect.
> 
> > more likely comparison would be: You live in a neighborhood known for
> > thieves. Everyone locks their doors. If you want to get into their
> > house, you have to knock, and they have to let you in. Oh, hold it, my
> > deadbolt must be repressing my neighbors freedom... 
> 
> No Ken, I'm not trying to break down anyone's doors, or invade
> anyone's home.  I am not a spammer.  Your analogy falls down.

Well, I don't think that you're dealing drugs, or that martial law has
been imposed, and I don't see people being rounded up and thrown in jail
for no reason (political climate aside), either. What I see is companies
trying to curtail behavior (spamming) that we all agree is a problem. 

> > > And while most other providers of high-bandwidth connections are a lot
> > > more expensive, there are two types of high-bandwidth connections that
> > > are (more or less) universally inexpensive for consumers: broadband,
> > > and DSL.  The problem is that neither are universally available, and
> > > more importantly neither market has sufficient competition.  We have
> > > the latter thanks to government listening to the lobbyists for the
> > > large telecoms (like AT&T/Comcast), shutting out everyone else.
> > > So, you can go complain to Comcast about anything you like until
> > > you're blue in the face, but they don't have to listen to you, and in
> > > general they simply won't, because they know they have you by the
> > > crunchies.  And they're doing everything in their power to keep it
> > > that way.
> > 
> > This is true. Sort of. There are several DSL companies out there that
> > have designed their services and pricing around users like us:Speakeasy,
> > Mindspring, Lightband, etc. They provide excellent service, and allow
> > you to do the things you want. They are a little more expensive then
> > broadband. But, if you want a Lexus, don't buy a Toyota and demand that
> > the manufacturer change it to suit your desires. 
> 
> I have no problem using one of those alternatives, and when I get back
> from Asia, that's most likely what I will do.  The problem is that all
> of these services will most likely disappear in a year, when the
> deregulation of DSL takes effect, and the phone company is no longer
> required to make their lines available to competitors, as I understand
> it.

You may understand incorrectly, then. The deregulation means that the
existing LEC will not have to open their CO's up to competition.
However, they will still have to honor existing contracts with other
providers.  
 
> > As to your other argument about your TOS being between you and your ISP
> > and AOL should stay out of it, this again is not totally true. AOL is
> > aware of the fact that Comcast/AT&T/Mediaone/Whatever does not enforce
> > their TOS, and therefore, people are running open relays and spam
> > services on high speed connections. This has a direct effect on AOL's
> > customer base. AOL, acting on behalf of their subscriber base, took
> > action to block traffic that shouldn't exist to begin with. You say that
> > "You don't have to run an SMTP server...", but the fact is, you are.
> 
> Sure, but what if I'm not?  What if I just prefer to send may own mail
> out myself, without it going through my ISP's relay?  You say the
> traffic shouldn't exist... on what merit?  Again, the TOS agreement
> does NOT limit outgoing SMTP.  So why shouldn't it exist?

It shouldn't exist on the merit that the only mail servers that should
exist on Comcast's network are those that Comcast runs. If the mail
comes from a residential IP address, then it isn't one of Comcasts mail
servers. 
 
> Why shouldn't I be able to use a different SMTP server from that
> provided by my ISP?  Perhaps I have another e-mail account on another
> system, and I need to be able to access it from my home broadband
> account.  Should that traffic not exist?  That's outgoing SMTP...
> If that's ok, but the other isn't, how do you make the distinction?

The distinction is that if you send your mail through another relay,
then it won't be coming from a residential Comcast subnet (using
corporate logic, here, not technical reality).  
 
> What gives my ISP the /moral/ right to decide what content or
> protocols is right for me?  Is this not just yet another form of
> censorship?

No, it isn't censorship in any way. They are not preventing you from
doing anything. They are merely imposing rules on how it is done. Same
as the government does with laws. The difference here is that you don't
have to use the service if you don't like the rules. 
 
> There is no difference, from a technical point of view, if I'm uploading
> a file to an FTP server, or sending e-mail from my own server, other
> than the port number in the TCP packet.  The only restrictions that my
> ISP should place upon me, from a moral standpoint, is if I were to
> exceed some service quota they've alloted me for the amount of money
> I've paid, or I have committed some crime while using my account.
> Everything and anything else should be up to me.  But they should
> certainly take action against me for one of those two.

It shouldn't be up to you. It's *THEIR* service. They have the right to
put any limits on it that they want. If you don't like the rules, then
don't use the service.  
 
> > There is absolutely no entitlement here. There is also no trampling of
> > freedoms. I doubt that anyone can show me anywhere in the Constitution
> > where is says that you have the right to run an SMTP server. 
> 
> It also says nowhere in the consitution that I have a right to buy an
> automobile that won't blow up when struck in the rear (to borrow
> Jeff's pinto analogy), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't expect it.
> Just because a particular restriction isn't mentioned in the Constitution
> doesn't make it OK, or right or just.

You're right. And to use your logic and your analogy, the government
shouldn't regulate automobile manufacturing safety. I should have the
right to buy a car that blows up if I want. I should also be allowed to
drive 300MPH if I want to. Oh, and to bring it back on topic, I should
be allowed to send out spam if I want to. Why should spam be allowed?
Just delete it if you don't want it. 

C-Ya,
Kenny