>But blocking 25 is still not a feature. Nor is it a benefit to the
>customer. You're arguing that it allows you to spend time providing
other
>benefits to your customer. Fine. *Those* are the benefits to your
>customers, not the port blocking. And the hard reality of the situation
>is that that is neither your customer's problem nor *should* it be your
>customer's problem. The network *they* see is less available due to
port
>blocking, and no matter how many other nice features you can then
provide,
>it's still a reduction in service.
As I mentioned before, it's not a problem for over 99% of our customers
because it's not a need. You are implying that we are providing less
service, merely because we only offer what people need as opposing to
offering everything we possibly can.
>If it's a trade-off, fine. Present it as a trade-off. Not a feature.
>It's a net reduction in service that you have to do because you don't
have
>enough time and people to do something better.
It is not a "net" reduction in service, because we've taken the time
savings and put them back into either bringing up some other service or
making some other service better. It is therefore a "net" increase in
the level of service provided.
>I'm not *arguing* with that, for heaven's sake. Don't you think I know
>the sort of shoestring budgets, particularly in terms of staff time,
that
>ISPs run on? Read my messages. You'll find that I have not *once* said
>that ISPs should not be doing this. I've been saying that it's a damn
>shame and that there are better solutions that for one reason or another
>aren't feasible for most ISPs. I *know* why they're not feasible. I'm
>not claiming you're all lazy bastards or something. You literally don't
>have enough money or time or legal support to Fix things and this is the
>next best thing. It's a nice stretch of bathwater to throw out.
Okay, well, we all KNOW that it's a shame to have to do this. It's a
shame that we need passwords, and session limits, and idle timers, and...
But the fact of the matter is that we NEED a lot of this stuff, and that
the reasons WHY they suck really aren't relevant when compared to the
reasons why we need them.
We know why we do the things we do. We don't have to like them, and
we're always looking for better mousetraps, but for now, we do have to
take certain measures. As such, I don't see your point in complaining if
you aren't going to offer some other possible solution. Whether or not
the solutions are feasible depends on the ISP evaluating them, so don't
assume that your proposed solutions are invalid or unworkable.
>What makes me mad is when people try to claim that a reduction in
service
>that prevents people from doing things they want to do is a "feature"
and
>that they shouldn't be trying to do those things in the first place.
This
>is just newspeak, and I don't have a lot of patience for it.
This is a trade-off, one that has benefitted us enormously while costing
us relatively little. It is something we can pass on to our customers in
the form of cost savings or additional services. If you can't call this
a "feature," at least don't call it a "reduction in service."
shag
