Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again

[Coleman Kane]

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:35 -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Coleman Kane <cokane at cokane.org> wrote:
> >  Yeah, I realize this *now*, however it doesn't still excuse them from
> >  unannouncedly denying service.
> 
>   Actually, per their ToS, they're within their rights to simply
> terminate your account and keep your money.  You *did* read that
> contract you agreed to, right?  ;-)
> 
>   FWIW, if you find you want to continue with Comcast (not sure how
> you'd reach that conclusion, but...), they offer a premium class of
> service which allows hosting services.  At work in Amesbury, MA, we're
> paying $65/month for something that's pretty speedy, with a static IP
> address.  YMMV.

As far as I can tell, I need to get in touch with their business reps in
order to figure out a business package that works for me. Most providers
I've used have a "home user w/ static IP option" that's typically a $10
fee above normal rate. I did find their "teleworker" package that must
be purchased in lots of ten by an employer and are a whopping $99 each.
This is the same package that Time-Warner typically provides in its
jurisdictions for less than half that.

> 
> > They [FairPoint] seem "less bad" than Comcast.
> 
>   Yah, when the choice was Verizon vs Comcast, I always said that it's
> not that I liked Comcast, but that I hated Verizon more.  In my
> experience, all telcos suck; some just suck more than others.  (And
> cablecos are telcos, if you didn't know already.)  If FairPoint
> manages to start Verizon's FTTP rollout back up again, I'll almost
> certainly be switching.  Cable Internet is usually much faster than
> DSL, so that's a tougher call.  If I hear really good things about
> FairPoint's customer service, I might consider it, but they'd really
> have to be astoundingly good things.  (Remember, all telcos suck.)

When in Cincinnati, I had good service relations with Cincinnati Bell
out there. That may be due in part to them being the only remaining
local telco that wasn't a former vital organ of AT&T... They actually
didn't suck:
   * They were receptive to my desire to run servers and even accepted
my diagnoses using traceroute, ping, etc...
   * They fixed a cable I dug up and broke in my yard for free
   * They strung cat-5 in one apartment to improve my DSL access, for
free
   * Customer service was not indignant when confronted with the rare
billing error
   * Didn't get fined for breaking contract

Of course, your best bet with their DSL is if you live within the
inner-city limits. Outside of that (in the burbs) and the CO/square-mile
ratio drops so far that you just end up being stuck with cable unless
you're lucky.

> 
> -- Ben

-- 
Coleman Kane
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20080425/21902ffc/attachment.bin