Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)

[Ben Scott]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Coleman Kane <cokane at cokane.org> wrote:
>> ...  TOS/AUP ...
>
> That is all fine and good, but it doesn't absolve them of the fact that
> an agent of the company is not informed (perhaps strategically) properly
> about their service regulations.

  True enough.  But the idea that people are frequently clueless,
misinformed, just plain wrong, or outright dishonest is hardly a new
one.  "Always read the fine print" is a proverb for good reason.  That
doesn't make it right, of course, but the fact that it's unfair
doesn't make it untrue, either.

> The aggravating thing is that they never actually come out and say these
> things.

  There I have to disagree.  Again, I refer you to their TOS.  Section
4.3 is "Restrictions on Use" -- a list of things you can't do.  One of
those things is "use the Service to host any type of server".  That's
pretty explicit.

> It is like they don't really want to let on that they are blocking traffic, but
> they want to do it anyhow.

  From their point of view, they're only blocking things which they
explicitly prohibit anyway.

>>> Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic.
>>
>>   So?
>
> I don't think that anybody here can argue that port 80 traffic is more
> prone to misuse than port 137-139,449 traffic.

  I honestly don't know.  But you're making an assumption with "prone
to misuse".  Their TOS just prohibit things; they don't say *why*.
It's entirely possible they don't care about "misuse" at all, but are
prohibiting servers for some other reason.  As I said, it might be as
simple as that's how they tell the difference between "residential"
and "business" usage.  TCP/80 might just be the easiest vehicle for
them use for that.  Or maybe they're worried about public file sharing
and copyright cartel DMCA notices.  Or maybe this is just a leftover
from the days of the "Code Red" worms, when Windoze boxes running
unpatched IIS servers on TCP/80 was a *huge* problem for the whole
'net.  Or something else.

> The only reason that I was given was that they wanted
> to prevent home users from serving web servers. If that is the case,
> then the policy should state that port 80 will be blocked.

  So they should spell out exactly how they do their enforcement, so
you can work around that enforcement easier?

  Remember: You were trying to do something you were prohibited from
doing.  I can understand being pissed off about being misled by their
salesweasles.  I fully appreciate that clueless tech support drones
suck.  I can sympathize with complaints that their TOS are overly
restrictive.  But complaining that they didn't let you do the things
they said they don't let you do... ~shrug~

>They also didn't even know if the business-tier blocks port 80 ...

  FWIW:

http://business.verizon.net/policies/tospolicy.aspx

  They don't appear to prohibit servers explicitly.  Of course, it
wouldn't surprise me to find out that Verizon still has issues.
They're a lousy company to do business with, and routinely fail to
deliver what they promise.

> It seems that email servers seem to be a bigger problem to "the rest of
> the world".

  Verizon generally doesn't care about what's a problem to the rest of
the world, they care about what's a problem *to them*.  That said,
spam is a problem to them, and they generally block TCP/25 outbound,
from what I understand.  And I think they require you to use
authenticated SMTP to relay through their servers, too.  (I dunno for
sure; it's been a while since I had to use a Verizon IP feed, thank
$DEITY.)

>> ... most home Internet users are consumer sheep, not producers of
>> content ...
>
> I disagree to an extent. Many people purchase a broadband connection for
> the purpose of online gaming and other interactive services like that.
> These tend to have a significant bi-directional requirement to them.

  Fair point (heh, pun).  "Consumers" are generating more traffic than
they used to.  I guess my own mental picture of Internet traffic
patterns are a bit dated.

> I feel like the gamers get a pass here, while I get the shaft.

  That would seem to be the case.  I don't think that was by design
(Verizon is generally incompetent; if they set out to do that on
purpose, I would expect them to screw it up), but I think that's the
end result for you.  :-(

>> Or to know that when somebody's home web server
>> coughs up the default "Your Apache installation is working" page, it's
>> not the ISP's fault.
>
> Then they can institute policies like MV, DSLExtreme, Easynews,
> TimeWarner, CinciBell, and others which say that they refuse to provide
> support for resolving problems with servers.

  Alas, saying one doesn't provide support doesn't cut down on the
support calls.

  Heck, remember, Verizon said they prohibit servers, and you've been
raising all kinds of hell about it.  :-)

  BTW, it does appear that TW prohibits web servers.  Time Warner
Residential Services Subscriber Agreement, section (4)(b)(iii).  MV
doesn't, because they don't suck.  The rest I haven't dealt with
before and don't feel like looking up.  (I had to deal with TW for
clients in the past, and was curious if they'd changed their policies,
so I took the time to look it up.)

>>   People interested in hosting services tend to have higher
>> expectations and bigger demands than the average consumer herd-animal.
>
> I don't know. I and other "cluefuls" I know tend to use ISP tech support
> sparingly.

  Right, but you keep assuming that everyone who might be running a
web server is clueful.  I can say with assurance that is not the case.
 Think of the hordes of "leet" people you see in web forums.  There's
lots more of them then there are clued people.  The unwashed masses of
YouTube consumers are hugely bigger than both combined, of course.

>>   Remember: You get what you pay for.  If you don't pay for it, don't
>> be surprised when you don't get it.
>
> Many times you don't.

  A very good point.  I should have qualified that to note that paying
is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

> In the case of services, especially monopolies that are still regulated
> as utilities should still be required to disclose things like this...

  The world of telecom regulation is a maze of twisty passages, all
different.  Regulation -- the way it's been done in this country --
hasn't really worked very well so far.  Of course, neither has
deregulation.  Maybe it's because we always seem to be doing both at
once.  :-/

> I think challenging them on these matters (and
> then evidencing you'll take the cash elsewhere) is probably one of the
> best approaches to try attacking such draconian-isms.

  Voting with our wallets is absolutely the best solution, when it's
possible.  Alas, the telcos generally have a monopoly, too.  How nice!
 :-(

-- Ben