Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
On May 20, 2008, at 22:33, Ben Scott wrote: > Maybe it's because we always seem to be doing both at > once. :-/ +1 Insightful. On May 20, 2008, at 23:16, Arc Riley wrote: > we need to break the last mile problem, then let competition reign. > ... > if enough people want to and are willing to put the effort in, that > monopoly can be broken yeah, no kidding. Any workable ideas? > too many people are lazy, happy to pay "just one bill!", even if they > know theyre being ripped off Sounds like you're describing a market opportunity for a 'bill aggregator'. "Customers who don't mind being ripped off" has to be a great opportunity. Maybe members of the Nanny State Project would sign up for a payroll deduction that would take care of all of their utilities, insurance, and maintenance. Thar's gold in them thar hills. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
> 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. :-/ Bell had a gov backed monopoly for decades, taking the rules away FOR THEM makes it worse usually when you hear the word deregulation its about the ilecs, not clecs cable companies still have a monopoly on local areas backed by the town or city making "francise agreements" as "incentive" for them to build their proprietary, closed networks we need to break the last mile problem, then let competition reign. > Voting with our wallets is absolutely the best solution, when it's > possible. Alas, the telcos generally have a monopoly, too. How nice! if enough people want to and are willing to put the effort in, that monopoly can be broken too many people are lazy, happy to pay "just one bill!", even if they know theyre being ripped off ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On May 15, 2008, at 13:04, Coleman Kane wrote: > So, is it just me, or are they specifically picking on web-servers > here? The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like > they are > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. I suspect it's a policy that pre-dates P2P where web serving was likely to cost them the most in peering costs. Like criminal puppetry in NH, obsolete policies often linger in corporations unless there's a cost advantage to getting rid of them. In a dial-up world, having a web server account somewhere makes pretty good sense. Some of our fellow GNHLUG members have glass to the garage with 15 meg up, and now it doesn't, and one could argue that community benefit is forfeit due to this policy, which is against the idea of their granted monopoly. I don't know what the killer application is when everybody has FTTP and 2-way communication, but it's hard to find out too. So, the moral of the story is apparently to develop the spec for HTTP over Bittorrent. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As Ben has been saying, the TOS says no servers & sometimes they do things > to prevent servers. > > Port 80 is the easy thing. I'm surprised they don't block 25, but then the > problem is outgoing mail, not incoming. > > They'll start having issues when they start blocking p2p stuff or > torrents. Most of those move around to random ports so it's a harder > problem. You can't really do p2p/bittorrent unless you can be a server and > a client. Some apps (WoW I think) use bittorrent to distribute patches too. > > On a similar note, there's the AOL AIM method. Lots of places block > outgoing ports to the default AIM port, so AOL listens on every port for > AIM. Chances are, one of those ports is open going out from the client. If > you want to find an outgoing hole in a firewall, nmap p1-65535 > oscar.aim.aol.com and you'll get a list of where to put your ssh server. > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again (and the evils of Verizon/FairPoint)
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 14:15 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I got Verizon DSL this week, and it turns out that they do block some > > traffic. > ... > > I learned this, after the sales person assured me > > that they don't block inbound traffic. > > Wow. I'm shocked -- *SHOCKED* -- to hear that. > > I know everyone always likes to only pay for what they can get away > with, rather than paying for what is delivered, but when push comes to > shove, the TOS/AUP is always the controlling document. People really > need to come to terms with that. What the sales guy or tech rep or > anyone else says is not worth the paper is isn't written on. Just > stop wasting your time (and everyone else's) worrying about what the > sales person said, because *it doesn't matter*. The TOS is the boss, > and the TOS spells this out in clear, unambiguous language. 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. This would have been fine if it stopped there, but two other technicians argued with me about the company not filtering any traffic. > > Specifically: The TOS of big ISPs pretty much *always* forbid > hosting services on residential connections. If you get away with > more, don't ever forget that you're getting something more than what > you've been promised, and as such, it can evaporate at any time. They > can change it at any time. They can block TCP/25 ever other day and > still be within their rights, because they are still giving you > exactly what they said they would. > > Don't be surprised when you get exactly what you signed up for. > > > Additionally, their usage policy doesn't state anything about blocking > > incoming traffic. It turns out that there is a paragraph that states that > > they don't want you to run a server ... > > Um... they explicitly forbid you from doing what you're trying to > do. While they don't say that they may block TCP ports to enforce > that policy, the fact that *they explicitly forbid you from doing what > you're trying to do* is kind of a clue, don't ya think? > > For those of you playing along at home: > > http://www2.verizon.net/policies/tos.asp > Section 4, Subsection 3 I read this too, and explained to the tech that the paragraph lead me to believe that it fell under their bandwidth regulations, where they have some maximum bandwidth number (that, of course, they can't tell you) that will be modified to restrict your traffic. I suppose blocking port 80 might fall under "bandwidth restrictions". The aggravating thing is that they never actually come out and say these things. It is like they don't really want to let on that they are blocking traffic, but they want to do it anyhow. > > > 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. They did not tell me that they are employing this restriction to safeguard users. 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. They also didn't even know if the business-tier blocks port 80 (which, at this point, I wouldn't even try). As far as I can tell from researching the matter, Verizon probably blocks port 80 for all but the highest level of Business DSL (which has up to 29 static IPs). So, I am left to guess that Verizon doesn't provide a solution for me. I could ask them, but they cannot be trusted to tell the truth on the matter, so it is better not to use them at all. > > > The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are > > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. > > It is extremely rare, in any part of any activity of any kind > anywhere in the world, to find that a law, rule, or policy is enforced > with absolute totality. You don't get a ticket every single time you > exceed the speed limit. You don't die every time you do something > risky in life. I don't get fired every time I screw off at work. I > don't ban people from the list server every time they break a rule. > This is pretty much the way the entire world works, and thank goodness > for that. > > I suspect the reason they're just blocking TCP/80 inbound is that is > where the problems were. Whatever motivation they have for blocking > the hosting of services, they found that the sore spot was web > servers. People running SSH servers or IRC servers or whatever > haven't been irritating enough for them to care yet. It seems that email servers seem to be a bigger problem to "the rest of the world". Additionally, abuse on any sort of ethical level wasn't the justification given to me when I asked why. The r
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:15:21 -0400 "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What the sales guy or tech rep or > anyone else says is not worth the paper is isn't written on. I will keep this gem. It will prove useful in talking to more clients than I care to think about. Reading the sections of the written documents which discuss what can happen if you violate its terms is also a prudent thing to do. -- Ed Lawson Ham Callsign: K1VP PGP Key ID: 1591EAD3 PGP Key Fingerprint: 79A1 CDC3 EF3D 7F93 1D28 2D42 58E4 2287 1591 EAD3 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I got Verizon DSL this week, and it turns out that they do block some > traffic. ... > I learned this, after the sales person assured me > that they don't block inbound traffic. Wow. I'm shocked -- *SHOCKED* -- to hear that. I know everyone always likes to only pay for what they can get away with, rather than paying for what is delivered, but when push comes to shove, the TOS/AUP is always the controlling document. People really need to come to terms with that. What the sales guy or tech rep or anyone else says is not worth the paper is isn't written on. Just stop wasting your time (and everyone else's) worrying about what the sales person said, because *it doesn't matter*. The TOS is the boss, and the TOS spells this out in clear, unambiguous language. Specifically: The TOS of big ISPs pretty much *always* forbid hosting services on residential connections. If you get away with more, don't ever forget that you're getting something more than what you've been promised, and as such, it can evaporate at any time. They can change it at any time. They can block TCP/25 ever other day and still be within their rights, because they are still giving you exactly what they said they would. Don't be surprised when you get exactly what you signed up for. > Additionally, their usage policy doesn't state anything about blocking > incoming traffic. It turns out that there is a paragraph that states that > they don't want you to run a server ... Um... they explicitly forbid you from doing what you're trying to do. While they don't say that they may block TCP ports to enforce that policy, the fact that *they explicitly forbid you from doing what you're trying to do* is kind of a clue, don't ya think? For those of you playing along at home: http://www2.verizon.net/policies/tos.asp Section 4, Subsection 3 > Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic. So? > The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. It is extremely rare, in any part of any activity of any kind anywhere in the world, to find that a law, rule, or policy is enforced with absolute totality. You don't get a ticket every single time you exceed the speed limit. You don't die every time you do something risky in life. I don't get fired every time I screw off at work. I don't ban people from the list server every time they break a rule. This is pretty much the way the entire world works, and thank goodness for that. I suspect the reason they're just blocking TCP/80 inbound is that is where the problems were. Whatever motivation they have for blocking the hosting of services, they found that the sore spot was web servers. People running SSH servers or IRC servers or whatever haven't been irritating enough for them to care yet. As for what the motivation for prohibiting the hosting services, I don't know. I can make some inferences based on the simple rule of "follow the money", though. To wit: It is hard to tell the difference between someone using something for "personal" vs "business" reasons. But looking at "hosting services" is an easy way to separate out the huge majority of people who are just looking to get email, watch YouTube, and download porn, from the much smaller group of people who actually want to use the Internet as a two-way link. Believe it or not, there *are* costs associated with this. Aside from asymmetric bandwidth demands (most home Internet users are consumer sheep, not producers of content, and the big ISPs design with that in mind (there may be a self-reinforcing component to this, but it's still the way things are)), hosting services is decidedly more complex and thus will involve more support calls. Why do you think the guy you got was so useless and clueless? Because he's trained on helping people through tasks like plugging in their modem and configuring Outlook Express. It costs a lot more money to train someone to, for example, know what a datagram is. 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. Sure, *you're* clueful enough to understand that, but there's a lot more people who have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Anyone who's ever done any support work knows that the support burden of those types can be quite large. People interested in hosting services tend to have higher expectations and bigger demands than the average consumer herd-animal. There's nothing inherent in a running a server that makes it that way, but it still is that way. Just like being a teenager doesn't automatically make one a bad driver, but statistically, the insurance companies know they should charge more for them. In short, people hosting services cost the ISP more than most of their customers. Why should th
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 25. So, is it just me, or are they specifically picking on web-servers > here? The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are > choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. > > > Their bias is that this may motivate people who want to run a home-server no matter what to jump to their business tier DSL, which, naturally, costs more for essentially the same connection, just with port 80 open. IMHO, it's border-line fraud because they are charging more for practically no change in service (upload and download speeds are the same at the first business-level tier, but there are I think 3 tiers of business service total), but that's want deregulation has given us. And yes, I am a Verizon/Fair Point home DSL customer. I will happily and gratefully admit that the service, for what it is, has been reliable, mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 18:01 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Yah, their residential division cannot sell the business packages, > and indeed, are often not even aware of then. If you seriously want > to go that route, I suggest identifying yourself to Comcast as a > business. If you say you're calling from a residence you'll just > confuse them. Say you have a small business office and want service. > This isn't even necessarily being misleaning; an individual can run a > sole proprietorship pretty much just by saying they are. > > > I did find their "teleworker" package that must > > be purchased in lots of ten by an employer and are a whopping $99 each. > > Yah, in addition to lousy customer service and draconian AUP, > Comcast's rates are also quite high. Good, fast, cheap: Pick none. > > > 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... > > That -- not being a Baby/Big Bell -- actually makes a really big > difference most of the time. NH used to have a number of small local > telcos, who -- from what I've been told -- generally had good service. > But anything that used to be Ma Bell -- forget it. They practically > invented bad customer service[1]. "We don't care. We don't have to. > We're the phone company." > > [1] Well, actually, banks invented bad customer service, but the > telcos automated it. > > > Of course, your best bet with their DSL is if you live within the > > inner-city limits. > > Yah, and even that can be really iffy in New England. Some of the > outside plant (lines on the poles, junction boxes, etc.) is incredibly > old and outdated. It's not at all uncommon to find stuff over 50 > years old, and which hasn't been properly maintained, either. You're > lucky to be able to run 28 Kbit/sec modem over it, let alone DSL. In > my old hometown of Newton, I remember when they had to replace a large > junction box because the tree it was nailed to grew far enough to > start pulling the wires off the termination blocks. > > -- Ben So... an update to all of this... I got Verizon DSL this week, and it turns out that they do block some traffic. They specifically block incoming port 80 traffic and nothing else, with the explicit reason that they want to block people from running webservers. I learned this, after the sales person assured me that they don't block inbound traffic. I also was occupied for two hours arguing with multiple first-tier technicians who told me (in broken English) that it had to be my problem and that Verizon/FairPoint doesn't block *any* inbound traffic. Additionally, their usage policy doesn't state anything about blocking incoming traffic. It turns out that there is a paragraph that states that they don't want you to run a server, but it says that I agree to Verizon reducing my bandwidth or disconnecting my service if I exceed their (unspecified) bandwidth limits. Additionally they don't block any other inbound traffic. So (if I were a luser), my inbound port 137-139 are open, as well as port 449 and port 25. So, is it just me, or are they specifically picking on web-servers here? The policy is quite absurd, in my mind. It is almost like they are choosing to pick on home-web-servers because of some inbred prejudice. The only upside is that Verizon gave me a 30 free-trial deal that I can run out, and I don't have to pay anything before I switch to another provider. I am looking into mv.com right now, as my best option. Speakeasy is nice, but they are expensive, and provide more that I need. MV sounds great, but the activation fee is high (especially since I am pretty certain I'll be moving again in August). I did find another company named DSLExtreme (http://www.dslextreme.com/) that apparently allows servers and even provides a web-interface for blocking/unblocking port 25. Additionally, they endorse the use of their connection for home-serving. There's a helpful FAQ here: http://www2.dslextreme.com/Support/KB/Details.aspx?questionid=11128 Right now I am looking into them as my best bet. The agent on the phone has told me that they don't charge activation right now... and the prices are less expensive than any of my other options. So they are worth looking into as an option. The downside is that they're located in Salt Lake City, UT... so no local office. -- Coleman Kane ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
Yes, I'm using a Linux server as my router. Once I noticed the DNS-related behavior, I power-cycled the DSL modem so I could test it thoroughly to confirm it. After that, I set up an hourly cron job on the routing server that asks the DSL modem to resolve "www.google.com": host www.google.com dsl.abreau.net (where "abreau.net" is my internal DNS zone, not the external abreau.net zone on the BLU server). On Fri, May 2, 2008 9:47 am, Jerry Feldman said: > On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:28:28 -0400 (EDT) > "John Abreau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have a DSL connection with a modem that is designed to allow only >> a single machine to access it. It worked fine with MacOS when I first >> installed it, but it didn't work with Linux until I discovered that >> it authorizes a machine when that machine uses the DSL modem to >> resolve a DNS query. >> >> Tech support was completely useless, and I only found out about it >> when I listed all the differences in network configurations between >> the Mac and the Linux box and then experimented with the results. > > > So, while this has nothing to do with Comcast, how did you eventually > resolve it? Are you using Linux as a router? Additionally, Comcast's -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:28:28 -0400 (EDT) "John Abreau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a DSL connection with a modem that is designed to allow only > a single machine to access it. It worked fine with MacOS when I first > installed it, but it didn't work with Linux until I discovered that > it authorizes a machine when that machine uses the DSL modem to > resolve a DNS query. > > Tech support was completely useless, and I only found out about it > when I listed all the differences in network configurations between > the Mac and the Linux box and then experimented with the results. So, while this has nothing to do with Comcast, how did you eventually resolve it? Are you using Linux as a router? Additionally, Comcast's predecessors, Continental CableVison initially would use the PC's MAC address the first time you provisioned. As a result, if you changed your NIC card or computer, you needed to call tech support to update the provisioning. They stopped this somewhere between MediaOne and ATTBI. I don't know what policies other ISP's have. I generally clone my MAC address into my router, but that is kind of unnecessary now. The cable modem does store the MAC address, but that can be cleared when you power down the cable modem. Secondly, most level 1 tech support people are not highly technically knowledgeable. They generally answer questions from a cookbook. So, when you call, you might get someone totally clueless or sometimes someone who has some technical knowledge. I've also found that some of the more technically knowledgeable people are the ones from India. In most cases, your best bet is to try to elevate it up to level 2 or higher where you do get a tech with some technical expertise. -- -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Wed, April 30, 2008 6:20 pm, Joshua Ronne Altemoos said: > I have read the list but I don't control what we get and what we don't. My > roommate does and I have to make due with what is well know. > > On the matter of the modem it happens even when another computer is using > the connection. I also do not know how to log into this modem. > I have a DSL connection with a modem that is designed to allow only a single machine to access it. It worked fine with MacOS when I first installed it, but it didn't work with Linux until I discovered that it authorizes a machine when that machine uses the DSL modem to resolve a DNS query. Tech support was completely useless, and I only found out about it when I listed all the differences in network configurations between the Mac and the Linux box and then experimented with the results. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9 PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
I have read the list but I don't control what we get and what we don't. My roommate does and I have to make due with what is well know. On the matter of the modem it happens even when another computer is using the connection. I also do not know how to log into this modem. --- Josh Altemoos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent from my mobile phone -Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -Veritas vos liberabit -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:55 PM To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Subject: Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again > From: "Joshua Ronne Altemoos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:22:24 -0400 > I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. > > Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down > and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent > ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for > uploading... You might be suffering from the RADSL vs. ADSL problem. In a sentence: Verizon sells RADSL but they call it "ADSL". > They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection > whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this > is to powercycle the modem. *That* could be due to idle timeout. Log into your modem and check for any idle disconnect setting... then disable it. :) > We are considering switching to Comcast. Have you been reading the list? Does "MV Communications" ring a bell? ;) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On April 30, 2008, Jerry Feldman sent me the following: > I've found that Comcast service tends to be at different levels in each > community. I've found my service to be very reliable with very few > outages since it morphed into Comcast several years ago. I ssuspect the reliability of Comcast relies heavily on who they bought out to get coverage in that area. I originally had AT&T Broadband, which worked well. Comcast bought that up, and it continued to work well. I know other people who had Adelphia, which was terrible, and when Comcast bought them up it continued to be terrible. > ISP's like MV can give a lot of personal service, but there are just > a few of them left. One of the problems with DSL ISP, regardless of how poor/great the individual ISP is, they're still at the mercy of the phone company to run the lines and make sure they're clean. If you have terrible phone lines, MV can't really help you. -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://weblog.2bithacker.net/PGP key ID 43C4819E v4sw5PUhw4/5ln5pr5FOPck4ma4u6FLOw5Xm5l5Ui2e4t4/5ARWb7HKOen6a2Xs5IMr2g6CM signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> I've found that Comcast service tends to be at different levels in each > community. I've found my service to be very reliable with very few > outages since it morphed into Comcast several years ago. I would prefer > that they open up port 25, but that would tend to let in a lot more > SPAM, so I just let it be. While FIOS is excellent, my bandwidth remains > well above 3Mbps down. It did take me overnight to download Hardy > Heron, but it appeared that the congestion was on the server side. The "consumer level" FiOS blocks you from running anything on port 25 and 80, at least that's what a friend of mine that has it says. You need to pay for business level to get those unblocked. He also has TV service as well and says it's not to bad, but that their DVR sucks. He has an HDTiVo with cable cards. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:55:26 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > We are considering switching to Comcast. > > Have you been reading the list? Does "MV Communications" ring > a bell? ;) I've found that Comcast service tends to be at different levels in each community. I've found my service to be very reliable with very few outages since it morphed into Comcast several years ago. I would prefer that they open up port 25, but that would tend to let in a lot more SPAM, so I just let it be. While FIOS is excellent, my bandwidth remains well above 3Mbps down. It did take me overnight to download Hardy Heron, but it appeared that the congestion was on the server side. ISP's like MV can give a lot of personal service, but there are just a few of them left. -- -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> From: "Joshua Ronne Altemoos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:22:24 -0400 > I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. > > Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down > and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent > ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for > uploading... You might be suffering from the RADSL vs. ADSL problem. In a sentence: Verizon sells RADSL but they call it "ADSL". > They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection > whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this > is to powercycle the modem. *That* could be due to idle timeout. Log into your modem and check for any idle disconnect setting... then disable it. :) > We are considering switching to Comcast. Have you been reading the list? Does "MV Communications" ring a bell? ;) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
Joshua Ronne Altemoos wrote: > I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. > > Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down > and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent > ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for > uploading... > > They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection > whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this > is to powercycle the modem. > > We are considering switching to Comcast. > > ~Josh > Just thought I'd add a positive word about VZ/Fairpoint FIOS existing install. I have not had any downtime since getting it installed a little less than a year ago. Just did a test 15591 kbps down and 1653 kbps up Which matches pretty well 'typical' speeds for real world (though I occasionally have seen better upload speeds). ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
RE: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
I have VZ/Fairpoint, and it is horriable I might add. Speeds are awful, I just speedtested the connection and got 700 kb/s down and 100kb/s up, but I never get these speeds really. I downloaded the recent ubuntu ISO @ 100kb/s or less. Also most of the times I get 4-10kb/s for uploading... They also refuse to replace our modem, that often disconnects out connection whenever one person stops using the connection, and the only way to fix this is to powercycle the modem. We are considering switching to Comcast. ~Josh --- Josh Altemoos [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -Veritas vos liberabit -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:02 PM To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org Subject: Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again > From: Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:12:01 -0400 > Hi all, > > I just had to deal with the Comcast tech support today to resolve their > unannounced block of my tcp port 25. The first level of tech support > listened to my explanation that I owned some domains and have the email > coming in locally through port 25. The guy explained that an "abuse This topic keeps coming up, over and over, on this list. It's actually partly what this list was designed for. Quoting the mailman page: "The gnhlug-discuss list is a mailing list for people interested in Linux to discuss Linux, Linux-related issues, and all the evil things that Comcast does." > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to I just switched my service to MV Communications (www.mv.com). I have to say I'm really happy with the service. It's cheap, the company is local (Manchester), and it's run by real people (with real brains, who speak English, etc.). They offer residential and business service, asymmetric and symmetric links, month-to-month subscriptions, etc. I have not encountered any trouble with them blocking traffic, either. As it turns out, GNHLUG is hosted by MV too, and... well... I'll let Ben finish that sentence. :) For what seems like AGES, I took what the big McISPs fed me and, of course, moaned and groaned about it. But finally, I got fed up, and went "in search of a real ISP". I spent an entire day on it, in fact... calling every ISP in the phone book. Would you know it? MV was the only good option I found. Maybe we can add FairPoint to that list, now? Perhaps you can report back on what *their* TOS allow, what (if anything) they block, and to what extent they're really just rebranding the same Verizon crap. :| ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... that $60 setup fee is pretty killer. Especially > considering that I will probably be moving again in August. Yah, paying provisioning costs when you're only going to need something for a few months is a bummer. But provisioning does cost -- it's going to be the most expensive part of your individual circuit. They don't just flip a switch. They actually have to have a guy drive out to the CO, wire up your pair to the DSLAM, and possibly drive to your place and put a meter on the line to qualify it, and then possibly also go out along the wire route to remove load coils and bridge taps from the poles. Once it's up and running, your particular loop doesn't need much individual attention. (Infrastructure costs are huge, of course, but those are "shared costs", not individual to you.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> From: Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:51:28 -0400 > Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > > Been happy ever since. Totally. Should have *started* with MV. Every > > call a pleasure; never one problem with the service. > >=20 > > -Bill > > They do look promising, and they appear to have cheaper rates than > FairPoint, but that $60 setup fee is pretty killer. Especially > considering that I will probably be moving again in August. Unfortunately, I was recently in that position as well. When I moved, I asked MV to "transfer" my service to my new location, but they told me they couldn't do that. I was told that I would have to terminate service at the first location, set up service at the second location, and that I'd have to pay the $60 setup fee again. But I knew my alternatives: Comcrap, Verizscam, and dial-up. So I did it and paid the second setup fee. AFAIWC, continuing service with MV was the only acceptable option. But I agree with you: $60 setup fee--no matter how often you move--that's harsh. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 19:46 -0400, Bill Sconce wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:38:31 -0400 > "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV > > for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I > > can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. > > > > http://www.mv.com > > > Another vote. As I've also said each time ISPs have been discussed, > I've been using MV for years, and wouldn't consider switching. I'd > tried two other local ISPs, neither of them a telco, and finally > thought to call MV when the second one started double-dipping on its > billing. > > Been happy ever since. Totally. Should have *started* with MV. Every > call a pleasure; never one problem with the service. > > -Bill They do look promising, and they appear to have cheaper rates than FairPoint, but that $60 setup fee is pretty killer. Especially considering that I will probably be moving again in August. -- Coleman Kane signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:38:31 -0400 "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV > for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I > can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. > > http://www.mv.com Another vote. As I've also said each time ISPs have been discussed, I've been using MV for years, and wouldn't consider switching. I'd tried two other local ISPs, neither of them a telco, and finally thought to call MV when the second one started double-dipping on its billing. Been happy ever since. Totally. Should have *started* with MV. Every call a pleasure; never one problem with the service. -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On April 25, 2008, Ben Scott sent me the following: > Okay: GNHLUG has been with MV for several years. We get incredibly > good service from them, and *for free* (because we're a non-profit > with tiny demands). Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV > for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I > can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. The only thing I don't like about MV is that they don't have a price point between the $75 personal colo (which can't get IP space) and the $250 rackmount colo. I'd like to have a box colocated there, as it's two blocks from my office, but I can't really spent more than $100/mo on it, as it's entirely donation based, and getting donations is like pulling teeth. Instead I'm stuck at another company that doesn't seem to entirely know what they're doing with colo, and I get service interruptions, reverse DNS delegation issues, and weird routing problems on an almost weekly basis. Ah well, get what we pay for, I guess. -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://weblog.2bithacker.net/PGP key ID 43C4819E v4sw5PUhw4/5ln5pr5FOPck4ma4u6FLOw5Xm5l5Ui2e4t4/5ARWb7HKOen6a2Xs5IMr2g6CM signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
David W. Aquilina wrote: > Other things I've liked about speakeasy: > > - They have actual intelligent people manning their tech support line > pretty much 24/7 My first tech support call to them a few years ago sold me on their service. I was trying to do something non-standard with the way my multiple IPs got NAT'ed locally and was having an issue interpreting the manual for their DSL modem/router. The guy asks what OS I'm running. I cringe and tell him "Linux". He says, "Hold on. It's faster if I just send you a shell script than to explain it to you. Are you comfortable with bash?" I think I almost fainted. I've been using their service ever since and I'm extremely happy about it. Their actual uptime is better than most T1's I've seen. The only times my service goes down are when power outages exceed my UPS capacity... and maybe an hour or two a year, with the rare exceptions of telco issues, which have happened all of three times in 7 years. Brian ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Yah, their residential division cannot sell the business packages, and indeed, are often not even aware of then. If you seriously want to go that route, I suggest identifying yourself to Comcast as a business. If you say you're calling from a residence you'll just confuse them. Say you have a small business office and want service. This isn't even necessarily being misleaning; an individual can run a sole proprietorship pretty much just by saying they are. > I did find their "teleworker" package that must > be purchased in lots of ten by an employer and are a whopping $99 each. Yah, in addition to lousy customer service and draconian AUP, Comcast's rates are also quite high. Good, fast, cheap: Pick none. > 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... That -- not being a Baby/Big Bell -- actually makes a really big difference most of the time. NH used to have a number of small local telcos, who -- from what I've been told -- generally had good service. But anything that used to be Ma Bell -- forget it. They practically invented bad customer service[1]. "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." [1] Well, actually, banks invented bad customer service, but the telcos automated it. > Of course, your best bet with their DSL is if you live within the > inner-city limits. Yah, and even that can be really iffy in New England. Some of the outside plant (lines on the poles, junction boxes, etc.) is incredibly old and outdated. It's not at all uncommon to find stuff over 50 years old, and which hasn't been properly maintained, either. You're lucky to be able to run 28 Kbit/sec modem over it, let alone DSL. In my old hometown of Newton, I remember when they had to replace a large junction box because the tree it was nailed to grew far enough to start pulling the wires off the termination blocks. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Serving of any kind is NOT allowed without express written consent from > ISP. Consent should be given in a separate service contract and should > be producible by the customer upon request from ISP." > > I am not entirely sure what "ISP" constitutes in that sentence ... The world of telcom regulation is labarynthian. First, some definitions: LEC = Local Exchange Carrier. A company offering local connectivity services in your area. CO = Central Office. The building where LEC equipment lives. The other end of your home telephone line terminates in a CO. ILEC = Incumbent LEC. The company that owns the common infrastructure, such as the CO buildings, the wires on the poles, and so on. Traditionally, one of the "baby bells" or "big bells" leftover from the AT&T divestiture. In NH, it was Verizon. Now it's FairPoint. CLEC = Competitive LEC. A company that doesn't own common infrastructure, but is offering services. They have to lease lines on the poles from the ILEC. Also, they generally rent either equipment, or space in the CO, or both, from the ILEC. So: When an ILEC is offering DSL, they are required by law to offer competitors access to their DSL equipment. Thus, the DSL provider can be different from the ISP. For example, in NH, it may be possible to subscribe to DSL from FairPoint, but with the ISP being Speakeasy. Speakeasy rents a port on the FairPoint DSLAM, but then provides a Speakeasy IP feed to you with it. Generally speaking, you have to go through the ISP. In other words, call Speakeasy, and Speakeasy deals with the ILEC. From my experience, that is a good thing -- dealing with ILECs is a severe pain in the asterisk. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:35 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:01 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "The gnhlug-discuss list is a mailing list for people interested in > ... all the evil things that Comcast does." I better call MV and get them to up our bandwidth... ;-) > As it turns out, GNHLUG is hosted by MV too, and... well... I'll let > Ben finish that sentence. :) Okay: GNHLUG has been with MV for several years. We get incredibly good service from them, and *for free* (because we're a non-profit with tiny demands). Seriously. GNHLUG gets better service from MV for free then I've ever been able to *pay for* with somebody else. I can't say enough good things about MV. Hugely recommended. http://www.mv.com -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > 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.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 05:16:42PM -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > I also came across the following "Acceptable Use Policy" on their > website: > http://632fpbe.fairpoint.com/forms/acceptable_use_policy.php > > It states: > "Serving of any kind is NOT allowed without express written consent from > ISP. Consent should be given in a separate service contract and should > be producible by the customer upon request from ISP." I have service from Speakeasy (and have for a couple years before moving up to NH as well) and I've been very pleased with them. Their TOS, regarding servers: "Speakeasy believes in the right of the individual to publish information they feel is important to the world via the Internet. Unlike many ISP's, Speakeasy allows customers to run servers (web, mail, etc.) over their Internet connections, use hubs, and share networks in multiple locations. Any service that causes a disruption in the network integrity of Speakeasy or its vendors, whether directly or indirectly, is strictly prohibited and could result in termination of service." from http://www.speakeasy.net/tos Other things I've liked about speakeasy: - They have actual intelligent people manning their tech support line pretty much 24/7 - One time an account on my system was compromised (shame on me for not setting a strict enough password policy for my friends' accounts!) and was used for naughtiness. Speakeasy attempted to contact me before cutting off service, and once I had assured them I took care of the problem they turned it back on within a couple of minutes. - They'll set the reverse DNS of your IP to whatever you like, as long as the forward lookup exists. Bad things about speakeasy: - A little pricey - They do have a contract - They got bought by BestBuy for Business a little while ago. Service hasn't seemed to suffer for it, though. hope this helps... -David -- David W. Aquilina [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 16:31 -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote: > Coleman Kane writes: > > > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to > > Comcast right now (I don't have a TV for their 99% mind-numbing cable > > programming racket, so I pay their higher net fee). I can also have > > unlimited usage and the sales person tells me that they don't block > > access. They also provide month-to-month service, instead of locking me > > into a contract. Additionally, I can provide my own DSL equipment if I > > have it. > > I would be curious to know if, in Fairpoint's DSL ToS, the term > "unlimited usage" is defined. I would also like to know if in this > ToS the subject of running a server at the customer side of the > connection is discussed. What does the ToS say about these cases? > > A quick perusal of their web site yields no details regarding these > matters. > > Thanks very much, > > --kevin I'm going to discuss this further with their sales person on Monday, hopefully when I set up my new account. I did express that comcast was blocking my service and my desire to handle my own mail for my domains. Whether the person on the other line understood or not, I am not sure of. It sounded to me like they really didn't care. I also came across the following "Acceptable Use Policy" on their website: http://632fpbe.fairpoint.com/forms/acceptable_use_policy.php It states: "Serving of any kind is NOT allowed without express written consent from ISP. Consent should be given in a separate service contract and should be producible by the customer upon request from ISP." I am not entirely sure what "ISP" constitutes in that sentence, but it sounds like a livable policy (service is available on an elective basis). We shall see how this goes... -- Coleman Kane ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
> From: Coleman Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:12:01 -0400 > Hi all, > > I just had to deal with the Comcast tech support today to resolve their > unannounced block of my tcp port 25. The first level of tech support > listened to my explanation that I owned some domains and have the email > coming in locally through port 25. The guy explained that an "abuse This topic keeps coming up, over and over, on this list. It's actually partly what this list was designed for. Quoting the mailman page: "The gnhlug-discuss list is a mailing list for people interested in Linux to discuss Linux, Linux-related issues, and all the evil things that Comcast does." > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to I just switched my service to MV Communications (www.mv.com). I have to say I'm really happy with the service. It's cheap, the company is local (Manchester), and it's run by real people (with real brains, who speak English, etc.). They offer residential and business service, asymmetric and symmetric links, month-to-month subscriptions, etc. I have not encountered any trouble with them blocking traffic, either. As it turns out, GNHLUG is hosted by MV too, and... well... I'll let Ben finish that sentence. :) For what seems like AGES, I took what the big McISPs fed me and, of course, moaned and groaned about it. But finally, I got fed up, and went "in search of a real ISP". I spent an entire day on it, in fact... calling every ISP in the phone book. Would you know it? MV was the only good option I found. Maybe we can add FairPoint to that list, now? Perhaps you can report back on what *their* TOS allow, what (if anything) they block, and to what extent they're really just rebranding the same Verizon crap. :| ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
Coleman Kane writes: > Anyhow, I did speak to FairPoint who informed me that I can get DSL > service (at the same speed) for a fraction of the rate that I pay to > Comcast right now (I don't have a TV for their 99% mind-numbing cable > programming racket, so I pay their higher net fee). I can also have > unlimited usage and the sales person tells me that they don't block > access. They also provide month-to-month service, instead of locking me > into a contract. Additionally, I can provide my own DSL equipment if I > have it. I would be curious to know if, in Fairpoint's DSL ToS, the term "unlimited usage" is defined. I would also like to know if in this ToS the subject of running a server at the customer side of the connection is discussed. What does the ToS say about these cases? A quick perusal of their web site yields no details regarding these matters. Thanks very much, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24EMeet me by the knuckles alumni.unh.edu!kdcof the skinny-bone tree. http://kdc-blog.blogspot.com/ -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Apr 25, 2008, at 14:12, Coleman Kane wrote: > So I am now curious if anyone else has moved to FairPoint, and how > they > have been doing with it. I'll be posting more details to my blog when it's confirmed, but I just heard a friend of a friend got DSL installed from Fairpoint within a week of her order, after trying to get it from Verizon for almost a decade. Rumor is they put the DSLAM's in two years ago but weren't turning them on as a matter of policy. Fairpoint would rather have the revenue than such a policy, apparently. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 14:39 -0400, Shawn O'Shea wrote:
>
>
> Furthermore, I do host my own "websites" and "email" on my
> local
> connection but none of it is used for commercial or business
> use. The
> comcast representative then proceeded to inform me that my
> hosting
> violates their terms and that I can get another provider, or I
> can use
> their "business class" service. He warned me that they'll be
> specifically monitoring my traffic for the next 30 days and if
> I don't
> "stop it" they will turn off my access.
>
> This is Comcast's SOP. Their Terms of Service that you agreed to when
> getting Comcast service says "no servers" , regardless of their
> commercial use or not. I'm not defending them, because I don't agree
> with the policy either, just that it is fact, and that by getting
> their service you agree to abide by their rules, dumb or not.
> From section: I. Prohibited Uses and Activities
> "use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the
> Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone
> outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also
> commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of
> prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to,
> e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;"
> http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
>
> -Shawn
>
Yeah, I realize this *now*, however it doesn't still excuse them from
unannouncedly denying service. They can contact me, they do have my
phone number / email address.
I am probably moving to FairPoint DSL. Generally I've had better service
in the past with DSL than with Cable in the city anyhow. Too bad
FairPoint didn't offer this service back when I first moved here though.
I recommend anybody living in NH to look at FairPoint for internet
access. They seem "less bad" than Comcast. Comcast can go screw
themselves, as far as I am concerned.
--
Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Comcast blocks port 25 incoming, yet again
>
> Furthermore, I do host my own "websites" and "email" on my local
> connection but none of it is used for commercial or business use. The
> comcast representative then proceeded to inform me that my hosting
> violates their terms and that I can get another provider, or I can use
> their "business class" service. He warned me that they'll be
> specifically monitoring my traffic for the next 30 days and if I don't
> "stop it" they will turn off my access.
>
This is Comcast's SOP. Their Terms of Service that you agreed to when
getting Comcast service says "no servers" , regardless of their commercial
use or not. I'm not defending them, because I don't agree with the policy
either, just that it is fact, and that by getting their service you agree to
abide by their rules, dumb or not.
>From section: I. Prohibited Uses and Activities
"use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises
that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your
Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as
public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers
include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and
proxy services and servers;"
http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
-Shawn
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
