<quote name="Von Fugal" date="Fri, 12 Nov 2010 at 13:03 -0700"> > <quote name="Corey Edwards" date="Fri, 12 Nov 2010 at 12:56 -0700"> > > All this talk of "restricting" makes me think of the winning strategy Ma > > Bell has employed. We'll see how well that works. I suggest that > > companies would be far more successful offering their customers > > opportunities to take advantage of their connections, and not for the > > "evil" p2p either. Computer gaming, webcams, remote desktop, VoIP all > > come to mind. Who even knows what else is out there? Why should the ISPs > > get to dole out access to those innovations? > > Oh, I don't know, because they PROVIDE the SERVICE?? > > If you don't like what they block, then pay someone else, like XMission.
It's like stewart said in his last email. The value is in a continuing relationship. This is what will keep companies (provided there are not unfair monopolises GRANTED by government) fair and reasonable with their customers. This is why no ISP will get so far as to block "all client ports!" Who is going to keep paying for that? That's just ridiculous. I like Clear, they provide what I need and not much more, at a price I can appreciate. The webserver guy didn't like them. Yes, he should have read their terms (which I did do, sparsely). Yes, the salesman should have said "those services are open (but not port 80)". If web server was SO important to him, why didn't he ask that as one of his FIRST questions? There is plenty of blame to go around. It doesn't make the webserver guy stupid, it doesn't make Clear evil and nefarious. There are plenty of reasons to block port 80 alone above any other port. 80 is the defacto firewall subverting port. A webserver is (apart from torrenting) the easiest way to use excessive uplink bandwidth. Clear is a home internet provider, it is engineered so that 90% of its bandwidth is allocated to download, and if someone uses too much upload it does hurt everyone. You might disagree that blocking port 80 is a poor way to keep a handle on uploads, but that is their policy. Just because an ISP (or whatever company) has a policy you dislike doesn't mean they did it for no other reason than to be evil and spite you. 99% of their customers probably don't care at all. It does not give you a right to force them through whatever ill conceived governmental coercion to provide you with what you want. You want something, go PAY someone to provide it for you. There is no right to a service. -- Von Fugal
pgpNAgff2lmrb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
